Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Point of Order

Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that, earlier this week, I asked for permission to present a petition to the House at this stage. It is the result of my constituents' serious concern at the proposed closure of a school at Coniston. It is a substantial petition. I understand that a further 11 petitions have been put down for presentation this morning.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I was Government Chief Whip for four years and therefore I know what is likely to delay the business of the day. I do not wish my petition to be the cause of us not moving to the principal business of the day as soon as possible. I am sure that my constituents do not wish their petition to be the cause of the House being delayed in getting to the business. Therefore, I believe that it would be right for me not to present my petition. Although I am not prepared to support the——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This should be a point of order, not an explanation.

Mr. Jopling: I am not prepared to support the Abortion (Amendment) Bill as it is, but, despite that, I believe that it would he right for me not to present my petition this morning, nor do I want the Clerk to read out what is a fairly substantial document. I believe that we should move to the principal business of the day as soon as possible and I hope that all those other hon. Members with petitions will take the same course as myself.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you give your ruling on the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), I ask you to take into account the fact that this morning's business is extremely important—and I do not say that from a purely personal point of view. It may well be, as has happened to me on a number of occasions—not least this week—that not every hon. Member who wishes to express their constituents' views is called during the debate. Therefore, those of us who have come here this morning with their constituents' views put down in a procedurally proper parliamentary petition should at least be allowed to put those petitions forward this morning—especially if we do not get the chance to express our arguments in a speech.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that it would be fair to say that, even on a well-attended Friday morning such as today, it is important that the tradition of presenting petitions to the House of Commons should be maintained.

You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the other night there was an attempt by the Leader of the House, who is present today, to introduce a curbing motion to stop petitions being presented. It was objected to and time will have to be found for a parliamentary debate on the matter. Perhaps time could have been allocated this morning—that would have occupied even more time—but some of us are not into that type of tactic.
My request is fundamentally important. I notice this morning that Sir John Banham, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, is requesting that the Rowntree takeover should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Skinner: I want a statement.

Mr. Speaker: That, too, has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I want to raise a genuine point of order—[Interruption.] I was not casting aspersions on anyone and I am sure that all the points of order have been genuine. I tread tactfully.
My point of order relates to your role, Mr. Speaker, as custodian of Back-Benchers' rights. Having scrutinised the amendments to the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, you will be aware that amendment No. 47 stands in my name. That amendment is genuine and important, and I wanted to refer to it during the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would not be in order for the hon. Gentleman to raise that matter. I have made my selection and I do not intend to change it.

Mr. Cohen: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. However, will you reconsider the selections that you have made at some stage during the debate? I should have thought that it was possible for another cluster of amendments to be grouped together for debate. I would hope that it might include my amendment No. 47, which is very important in terms of doctors being sued for negligence and damages. I ask you to consider that during the debate.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. In relation to all the points of order I must state that, as the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said, the main business today is a very important Bill on which I believe the House wants to reach a decision.
I note that the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale does not propose to present his petition. Perhaps others will follow suit. However, I have no authority to stop petitions being presented, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has explained.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to remind the House that, under Standing Order No. 132, hon. Members presenting a petition must confine themselves to a statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it, and the material allegations that it contains and to reading the prayer to the petition. Hon. Members should not read the whole petition or make a speech about it. I call Ms. Primarolo.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called for the presentation of the petitions. I will take points of order afterwards.

Petitions

Abortion (Amendment) Bill

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I wish to present a petition signed by more than 1,300 of my constituents in connection with this morning's proposed business. It arises from their deep concern about the proposals in the Abortion (Amendment) Bill as it would threaten women and endanger their health.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, the Humble Petition of UK Residents Showeth that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill which proposes to reduce the upper limit of abortion will, if enacted, restrict women's choices, endanger their health and open the door to further attacks on the 1967 Abortion Act.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do Vote against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

To lie upon the Table.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I want to present a petition from the men and women in my constituency who have shown their deep concern about the effects that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill will have on women.
Two of the signatories have a special concern. One is a victime of rape, and the other the son of a woman convicted for illegal abortions before the enactment of the Abortion Act 1967. The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, the Humble Petition of UK Residents Showeth that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill which proposes to reduce the upper limit for abortion will, if enacted, restrict women's choices, endanger their health and open the door to further attacks on the 1967 Abortion Act.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do Vote against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I wish to present a petition from several hundred of my constituents and others from south Yorkshire in relation to the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. There is deep concern in my constituency about the Bill, and I want to read the contents of the petition to the House——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind what I said earlier.

Mr. Barron: The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, the Humble Petition of UK Residents Showeth that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill which proposes to reduce the upper limit for abortion will, if enacted, restrict women's choices, endanger their health and open the door to further attacks on the 1967 Abortion Act.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable. House do Vote against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

To lie upon the Table.

Ms. Joan Walley: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents and people living in Talke Pits, Norton, Kidsgrove and Tunstall to express the deep concern felt in my constituency about the uncertain dangers to health that will arise if the Abortion (Amendment) Bill is passed today.
The petition reads:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, the Humble Petition of UK Residents Showeth that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill which proposes to reduce the upper limit for abortion will, if enacted, restrict women's choices, endanger their health and open the door to further attacks on the 1967 Abortion Act.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do Vote against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

To lie upon the Table.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Cynon Valley, several thousands of whom have written to me in opposition to the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. They are very concerned that the proponents of the Bill give a distorted impression of British abortion law, which is one of the least liberal in Europe. They believe that the way to reduce the number of late abortions is to improve the availability and acceptability of NHS abortion services, to increase contraceptive provision for young people, to offer realistic sex and family life education in schools and to develop more sensitive techniques for the diagnosis of foetal abnormality.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, the Humble Petition of UK Residents Showeth that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill which proposes to reduce the upper limit for abortion will, if enacted, restrict women's choices, endanger their health and open the door to further attacks on the 1967 Abortion Act.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do Vote against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

To lie upon the Table.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: I wish to present a petition from more than 200 men and women from my constituency and from elsewhere in east London and one other from south London.
My constituents are very concerned about the danger to the law as it stands contained in the Abortion (Amendment) Bill with regard to women's health and choice. The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, the Humble Petition of UK Residents Showeth that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill which proposes to reduce the upper limit for abortion will, if enacted, restrict women's choices, endanger their health and open the door to further attacks on the 1967 Abortion Act.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do Vote against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I rise to present a petition signed by a number of my constituents about the business before the House today—the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. It has been collected by the "Fight Alton's Bill" campaign of the Polytechnic of Central London students' union. It has a number of sponsors, including Members of the House and important people throughout the community, as well as many important organisations, among them trade unions and women's organisations, the TUC and, incidentally, Liberal Women for Choice.
My constituents are very worried about the effect of the Bill on women's health and rights. They say:
The Abortion (Amendment) Bill which proposes to reduce the upper limit for abortion will, if enacted, restrict women's choice, endanger their health and open the door to further attacks on the 1967 Abortion Act.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do Vote against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.


The first signature is that of Jan Tallis, chair of the women's equality sub-committee.

I agree with the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Dave Nellist: I rise to present a petition from my constituents which opposes the attempts of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) to weaken the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967. The petition alleges that
The Abortion (Amendment) Bill … will, if enacted, restrict women's choices, endanger their health and open the door to further attacks on the 1967 Abortion Act.
The petition has 54 signatures, and was delivered to me late on Wednesday evening. This is my first and most appropriate opportunity to present it to the House. Although it is not the largest petition that I have presented, it is three or four times more substantial than the number of letters and postcards in support of the Bill that I received while it was in Committee.
The petition concludes:
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your House do Vote against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
I fully support the petition, and only wish that this morning we were discussing a reduction in abortions through improved National Health Service provision.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of several hundred of my constituents. It is headed "Fight Alton's Bill", and states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, the Humble Petition of UK Residents Showeth that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill which proposes to reduce the upper limit for abortion will, if enacted, restrict women's choices, endanger their health and open the door to further attacks on the 1967 Abortion Act.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do Vote against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

I entirely support my petitioners.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I beg to present a petition on behalf of several hundred of my constituents. I should like to say in its support that it has been collected in rain and in shine, at street corners and on Saturday mornings, and it is the only voice that women in my constituency can have in the House today. It states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, the Humble Petition of UK Residents Showeth that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill which proposes to reduce the upper limit for abortion will, if enacted, restrict women's choices, endanger their health and open the door to further attacks on the 1967 Abortion Act.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do Vote against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
I applaud that sentiment, and support the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The first group of amendments——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I will take a point of order from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) first.

Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is with a sense of deep sadness and real concern that I bring this point of order to your attention. It has always been my intention to try to get the

subject of abortion properly considered by the House, on the merits of the issues that have come before us as a result of medical advances, and to get it settled so that it is not constantly raised here.
Therefore, after the Committee stage of the Bill, I went to the Department of the Clerk of the House to inquire exactly how the amendments and the Bill would be handled on Report and Third Reading. I was given to understand that precedent would be followed exactly, and that, indeed, the way in which the amendments on the timing after which——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have received advice unofficially, but he must bear in mind that the Chair makes the selection of amendments. I hope that he is not querying that.

Mr. Wells: Of course I accept entirely the prerogative of the Chair. We put our trust in the Chair to make these very difficult decisions. I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, and the Clerk's Department have given every consideration to the difficult issues that you have had to consider during the past two weeks, and I am not bringing that into question. However, we have to consider this serious question as a whole in the House. If precedent is not followed by Mr. Speaker's Office and the Clerk's Department, we shall find ourselves in extremely deep water. I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I gave most careful consideration to my selection of amendments. Precedent has been followed to the extent that the amendments will he voted on as they fall on the Amendment Paper, as would happen in the case of any other Bill before the House.

Ms. Clare Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must say, with enormous regret, that I believe that the way in which you have selected the amendments is deeply biased, and does not allow——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Lady there. That was an unworthy comment for her to make. I think that the whole House will wish to get on with debating the Bill without raising points of order of that kind with me. May I tell the hon. Lady that the strongest representations were brought to me both by those in favour of the Bill and by those against it, urging me to select amendments which they judged would be in the interests of their respective points of view. I have had to make a very difficult decision about the fairest way of dealing with the matter. I have followed precedent to the extent that the votes will arise as the amendments come on the Amendment Paper. That would be the way in which any amendment would he debated and voted on in any other Bill.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Short: I have not finished my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must wait.

Ms. Short: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must wait.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the House can well understand the difficult judgments


that you have had to make in this matter. I think that you and the House are also aware that there are a number of different precedents that could have guided you.
The point on which I want your guidance, Mr. Speaker, perhaps as much for the future as for now, is this: is it the case that, on all occasions when a Bill is before the House and amendments are tabled, the precedents now being set—regardless of what may have been the case in the past—means that the order in which amendments are taken by the Chair will follow strictly and solely the order in which they are tabled? You will understand that the matter has important implications for the way in which the House conducts its business, and I ask you to give thought to it, Mr. Speaker.
If amendments will be considered only in the order in which they are accepted by the Table Office, hon. Members may be involved in undignified scrambles to get their amendments in first. I believe that you, the Table Office and the Clerks will have to give serious consideration to how you will handle the battle that may occur when hon. Members table their amendments in sequence, if that is to determine the way in which they are considered by the House. That is the important implication of what is happening today.
I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will clarify for the House how the matter is to be handled and whether it is an immutable rule that will apply to all Bills in future.

Mr. Speaker: The same applies to all Bills. There are precedents for altering the order, but every Bill is considered on its merits.

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you a question about your selection of the first group of amendments? You have selected new clause 3 for debate with amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42. They have different purposes. I am opposed to new clause 3, but I support amendment No. 41. Will there be a chance to divide on the amendments as well as on new clause 3?

Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly allow a Division on amendment No. 40 or on amendment No. 41.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance and clarification on the point raised by the leader of the Liberal party. New clause 3 does not seem to relate to my amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42, and I am somewhat surprised that they are being taken together.
New clause 3 appears towards the beginning of the Amendment Paper. Therefore, at the end of the first debate on the amendments that you have chosen to group together, we shall presumably be entitled to vote on new clause 3. My amendments, which I shall obviously press to a Division because I believe that they are important, will presumably be considered after the next debate, because they are in a later line of the Bill but are what I would call weak amendments. May I have confirmation of that?

Mr. Speaker: That is absolutely correct.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, and further to what you said a moment ago in response to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). With this Bill, as with

other Bills, the amendments have been selected on their merits. As it appears that the overwhelming interest of the House is to vote on the amendment concerning the period of 24 weeks, how is it possible not to have that amendment at the head of the list of amendments.

Mr. Speaker: As I said earlier, if I had remarshalled the amendments—and it would have been a remarshalling—I could have been accused of favouring one group of hon. Members who favour one method of calling amendments as opposed to the other. I hope that the whole House will accept that the Speaker has a heavy responsibility in selecting amendments. In the circumstances, I have selected them in the same way as I would select amendments to any other Bill that comes before the House. I hope that the House will now get on with debating it and not challenge my selection of amendments. I have given enormous thought to the amendments that should be selected. I believe that I have been fair to all parties who are interested in the Bill, and I hope that we can now proceed to debate it.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to try to help you.

Mr. Speaker: I am deeply grateful, but I call Ms. Richardson first.

Mr. Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Absolutely not. I have called Ms. Richardson.

Ms. Jo Richardson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is about your selection, but it relates to a different point. I am being absolutely serious; it is a matter of life and death.
Amendment No. 36, which is about emergency provisions for abortion, has not been selected. I am not disputing the deep thought that you have given to the amendments, Mr. Speaker, but it could well be that you perhaps did not entirely understand. I shall briefly explain. In the Abortion Act 1967, there is an emergency provision——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady may not do that. Again, I say to her and to the whole House that I have given the greatest and most careful consideration to the amendments over a long period—ever since they started to come in. I do not propose to change my selection of amendments. We should get on with debating the Bill.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I notice that amendment No. 8, to delete Scotland from the provisions, has not been selected.

Mr. Speaker: I know. I have not selected it.

Mrs. Fyfe: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I have not selected it.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can help me. This is a different and genuine point of order. I know that it is unusual to have a genuine point of order.

Mr. Skinner: Mine are genuine.

Mr. Sedgemore: I defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Yesterday I went through what I thought was the correct procedure to present a petition to the House. I wonder whether you can tell me whether I did something wrong. I went upstairs to the Journal Office and got the petition signed by somebody with the initials DLR. I went to the Table Office and was told by the Clerks, who are always helpful on such occasions. that the petition was perfectly in order. You did not call it this morning. Therefore, I take it that the petition was not perfectly in order. I shall he grateful if you will tell me why it was not perfectly in order so that I may re-present it.

Mr. Speaker: I shall need to look into that matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many outside the House who are following our discussions this morning with a great deal of interest. I believe that they expect us to debate the Bill and to come to our decisions in a parliamentary way. To raise points of order with the Chair on matters relating to selection is not the correct parliamentary way of proceeding.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) promised to be helpful. I think we must then get on.

Mr. Skinner: The first thing that I have to say, which will undoubtedly be helpful, is that any serious miscalculation in respect of the petition of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) will be resolved. I am certain that you, Mr. Speaker, will ensure that adequate time will be provided later today for my hon. Friend to present his petition and for a report to be made on how the miscalculation occurred.
The other matter that caused a little furore earlier was your comment that, in accordance with precedent, you, Mr. Speaker, have selected the amendments in a certain manner. In answer to an intervention by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)—it was probably the only constructive thing that he has said in all the years that I have known him—you said that you were dealing with the matter on an ad hoc basis. As you must get these things right for future Bills, you need a form of words that will enable you to clarify the position in relation not only to this Bill but to others. Otherwise, you will be placed in a serious predicament, with people scrambling to table amendments and camping out upstairs to get them tabled in order.

Mr. Speaker: It is rare for the Chair to remarshal amendments. It does not normally happen, and it has not happened today.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on the amendments relating to Northern Ireland. I raise this point, although I am not a Northern Ireland Member. However, it puzzles me that——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the same answer to the hon. Lady as I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). I have not selected any amendments concerning Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Gorst: Will you, Mr. Speaker, say whether the amount of time spent dealing with points of order will affect the precedents with regard to acceptance of a closure motion, if it is moved?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair would be bound to have to take into account points of order during the forthcoming debate, but I hope that they will be genuine points of order. I shall take one more point of order, but we must then proceed with the business. I wish to call the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), whose petition was, by mistake, not listed.

Ms. Short: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Sit down please. I said I shall take one more point of order. I call Mr. Andrew Bennett.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I tried to catch your eye earlier, Mr. Speaker, to support my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who raised the question of selection and his disappointment that his amendment had not been selected. On that occasion, You made it clear that it was not possible, as I fully accept, for hon. Members to question your selection of amendments, but you implied that that referred to the debate on this Bill.
As I understand it, your selection refers to today's business. If the business continues beyond today. would you be in a position—perhaps unfortunately for you—to make a new selection? You would then be able to take into account my hon. Friend's amendment and any other amendments that were tabled. It will be a considerable help to my hon. Friend to have an assurance that there would be a completely new selection procedure if we do not complete the business today.
You said, Mr. Speaker, that new clause 3 would be voted on and that amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42 would be voted on at the appropriate point. Will you confirm that, if the closure is moved on new clause 3, voting on amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42 will automatically be taken after 2.30 pm? Will the opportunity to vote on those amendments be lost, if it is not possible to vote on them before 2.30 pm, or is there a procedure by which we can return to those amendments on another occasion?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman well knows that, if the Bill is not completed today—and I think that the House hopes that we shall make progress on it—I should have to reconsider my selection for any subsequent debate.
I reiterate what I have already said about new clause 3. I am prepared to allow the House a vote on either amendment No. 40 or amendment No. 41. They will fall for Division later at their proper place on the Amendment Paper. I now call the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch to present his petition.

Mr. Sedgemore: I am most grateful that, on this morning of passion and fury, you, Mr. Speaker, have put the procedure right and upheld the rights of my constituents to petition against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
The petition is signed by 340 persons living in Hackney, South and Shoreditch and one other person named Ann Clwyd whose address is 70, St. Michael's Road, Llandaff. My petitioners are concerned about the effects of the Bill on the health of women, on their right to choose whether


they should have abortions and on the fact that they believe that, if the Bill is enacted, it will lead to further attacks on the 1967 Act.
The petition says:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, the Humble Petition of UK Residents Showeth that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill which proposes to reduce the upper limit for abortion will if enacted, restrict women's choices, endanger their health and open the door to further attacks on the 1967 Abortion Act.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable. House do vote against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

I support the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Abortion (Amendment) Bill

As amended, (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 3

APPEALS TRIBUNALS

'After section 5 of the Abortion Act 1967 there shall be inserted the following section:—
5A(1) In respect of the refusal of an application by a woman for the termination of her pregnancy in terms of section I of this Act, or in the case of any delay by the Area Health Board or any of its responsible officers in reaching a decision on such an application, then that woman shall be entitled to make an appeal to the Terminations Appeals Tribunal.
(2) There shall be a Terminations Appeal Tribunal for each Area Health Authority and the Secretary of State shall by order make provision for the establishment, constitution and procedure of the Termination Appeals Tribunal.
(3) The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1921 shall apply to the Termination Appeals Tribunal.".'.—[Mr. Doran.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Frank Doran: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 40, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out
'on a consultant gynaecologist's recommendation'
and insert
'on the advice of a registered medical practitioner who has been admitted to membership of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists'.
No. 41, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out
'by a consultant gynaecologist and one other registered medical practitioner'
and insert
'formed in good faith, by two registered medical practitioners'.
No. 42, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).

Mr. Doran: I apologise for my bedraggled state and hoarse voice as I have rushed here this morning from Aberdeen where the Labour party last night won a magnificient victory. It is opportune that I start by mentioning the city that I am proud to represent, because Aberdeen is a city where the laws on abortion have been well tested, not just since 1967, but since the 1930s.
I am disappointed that you, Mr. Speaker, did not choose the amendment relating to the exclusion of Scotland from the operation of the Bill, because Scots law is very different from English law. It is a much more flexible system. There is no stated time limit. The effective time limit in Scotland is 24 weeks because the law says that abortion would be a criminal offence in the case of a viable foetus. It is now medically accepted that a foetus is viable at the age of 24 weeks. I find it distressing that we are talking about time limits when the system in Scotland is quite different and the concept of rigid time limits is quite alien. We have flexibility and that adds to the system.
New clause 3 would amend the Abortion Act 1967 and attempts to do what the Bill does not do. If the Bill is implemented, it will impose a strict time limit with certain minor exceptions. I regard those exceptions as minor, although I know that the hon. Members who propose them do not regard them as such. However, they were presented less in a spirit of improving the legislation than in a spirit of recognising that the Bill had no prospect in the House without a compromise.
There is already a major difficulty in the operation of the 1967 Act. It is well known that the response from the medical profession to the Act is, to say the least, patchy. There are some parts of the country where the Act is operating in the spirit in which it is passed and in accordance with the law. My own city of Aberdeen has long experience of the operation of abortions as a public service to women in need, but there are other parts of the country where the law is operated less satisfactorily.
For example, in Glasgow, the law is operated perfectly satisfactorily in one part of the city, hut, if a woman is unfortunate to live in the other part, she has grave difficulty in obtaining an abortion, even if she satisfies the requirements of the 1967 Act. The net result is that over 900 women a year have to leave Glasgow to go south to England where, for the purpose of statistics, they are treated as foreign women. That subject has caused great excitement among those who support the Bill. Nine hundred women leave Glasgow every year and go south for abortions because they cannot obtain them in their native city, regardless of the fact that——

Ms. Clare Short: My hon. Friend refers to that part of Glasgow where the entitlements under the existing law are not extended to all women. Will he include a reference to Birmingham where the situation is exactly the same? As a result of the conscience clause, which we all respect, women in Birmingham do not obtain their entitlement under the law unless they can afford to go into the private sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is deeply wrong?

Mr. Doran: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I was about to turn to the situation in Birmingham which suffers from the same problem as that part of Glasgow to which I referred.

Mr. David Marshall: Will my hon. Friend specify the parts of Glasgow to which he is referring?

Mr. Doran: I understand that that is the practice in the southern part of Glasgow, but I do not have details of the hospitals involved. However, I shall find out and tell my hon. Friend later. As I said, 900 women a year leave Glasgow to have abortions, so the record speaks for itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said that that is also the position in Birmingham.
I have already expressed my regret that my amendment that would have excluded Scotland from the scope of the Bill was not selected. Equally, I regret that new clauses 1, 2 and 4 were not selected, because they would have put new clause 3 into context. All those new clauses attempted to deal with the difficulties that would arise if the Bill were ever enacted. It lacks flexibility and pays no heed to the existing difficulties that we all wish to avoid.
In Committee I frequently said that I am not in favour of abortion, and I do not think that any of us are. It is something that we all find difficult to accept. However, it exists and, indeed, has existed for as long as there has been birth, which is as long as mankind has existed. There will always be abortion, so it must be within a legal framework. Women are entitled to have an abortion in clean and safe surroundings with medical attention. That did not happen before the 1967 Act, other than in a few areas such as Aberdeen, and that will be the case again if the Bill is passed unamended.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I speak as a biologist. It is often said that we all dislike the concept of abortion, but in fact abortion can be a natural as well as an artificial process. About one third of all abortions occur naturally, without medical help. Medical progress has, to some extent, subverted natural abortion, bringing to full term many babies who would have been aborted naturally but for medical science.
Abortion is not an unnatural process; it is part of nature. In previous times, natural abortion eliminated many of the current problems of foetal abnormality in the later stages of pregnancy. That is especially true of genetic foetal abnormalities, which often conflict with the genetics of the mother through the placenta and produce a natural abortion. We must not think that abortion is altogether unnatural and unpleasant—it is a normal weeding out process——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Interventions must be brief. I have allowed the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) to make a fairly extensive preamble to the new clause and the amendments, which are comparatively narrow. I am sure that he will now address himself to them.

Mr. Doran: I was tempted to intervene on the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), but I resisted. I accept her point because her professional background gives her great experience in these matters. Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I also accept your strictures.
The new clause would allow a woman who had been refused an abortion to appeal, although within the context of the 1967 Act it is difficult to determine how such an appeal should be provided. The Act makes it clear that certain acts should not be regarded as criminal in certain circumstances. New clause 4 would have changed the emphasis and the onus so that abortion could be provided in certain circumstances following an application by the woman. Without the benefit of new clause 4, new clause 3 may appear to be lacking something. Obviously, it will need to be amended—presumably in another place—if it is accepted.
I would choose the vehicle of an appeals tribunal, which is a well tried and tested remedy. The major difficulty is the strict time limits. The period of gestation is well known. The time limit in Scotland is, in effect, 24 weeks because of the viability of the foetus, while in England it is 28 weeks because of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. It is important that members of the medical profession address themselves to time limits— not only those set by law but those that they choose to apply when considering particular cases.
I envisage new clause 3 being a spur to the medical profession to reconsider its practices. I commend to them those followed by the Grampian health authority, which


recognises that time limits are crucial. If a woman tells her general practitioner that she wishes to be considered for an abortion, that general practitioner follows a procedure established by that health authority. While the woman is still in his surgery, he must immediately contact the obstetrics dept of the local hospital, which must make an appointment over the telephone. The doctor does not have time to follow his usual procedure of writing to the hospital for an appointment, waiting for that to be processed and an appointment sent and then notifying the woman. My health authority has successfully managed to expedite the whole process.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: I have just had handed to me letters from 41 doctors in Tower Hamlets, which is in my constituency, dealing with the issues that my hon. Friend is raising. They state:
As general practitioners in Tower Hamlets, whatever our personal views on induced abortion"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is more of a speech than an intervention, and I find it difficult to relate it to the new clause under discussion.

Ms. Gordon: It deals with the points being raised—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must be brief if she is making an intervention.

Mr. Doran: I entirely accept the point that I think that my hon. Friend tried to make, and I intend to refer later to similar documentation.
The inadequacies in the National Health Service must be remedied, and that is the purpose of the new clause. A survey of general practitioners in the Haringey area attempted to highlight those inadequacies. My knowledge of other areas, especially Glasgow and Birmingham, is that the survey's findings could equally well apply there. Some 41 per cent. of general practitioners said that facilities for abortion within the NHS were inadequate and that there were huge delays in obtaining appointments. Although 53 per cent. of those surveyed referred all women to the NHS, a significant number did not. The two most common reasons for that were women's preference—34 per cent.—and the probable delay in obtaining an appointment—a high figure of 20 per cent. The survey suggested that there was a large overlap between the 34 per cent. for women's preference and the 20 per cent. for fear of delays in hospitals providing early appointments.
Nearly half the general practitioners surveyed—47 per cent. of them—felt that there should be early abortion units, and I shall return to that point. A substantial proportion of them—67 per cent.—were concerned about pregnancy testing and similar issues. Those are real and serious difficulties in the Health Service. As I said earlier, one of the major motivations behind the new clause is to encourage the Health Service to re-examine its practices. 
10.30 am
I am well aware that the 1967 Act embodies a conscience clause which permits certain Health Service employees to opt out. These days, there is a fondness for that expression on the Government Benches. In any event, I am concerned at the way in which that conscience clause can be used to militate against women who want or need an abortion. In certain areas there seems to be a

preponderance of Health Service employees exercising their option to use the conscience clause. That fact is not advertised or publicly known, and a woman may be a long way into the system before she realises that it militates against the abortion she may need—not because she fails to comply with the terms of the 1967 Act, but because there is an in-built prejudice or conscience against abortion in the first place. I suppose that I am really saying that the law is not being observed and recognised.
New clause 3 will encourage general practitioners to look again at the conscience clause. If I had been given the time and the freedom to draft the amendments I wanted, I would have proposed a register of medical practitioners, which women could consult to identify those operating the conscience clause who held strong, and perfectly reasonable, beliefs against providing abortions. In that way, a woman would not be seeking the assistance of a practitioner whose beliefs entailed an in-built delay she could know nothing about. We must find a way of overcoming that problem, perhaps with the register I have mentioned. New clause 3 would provide a way out and a right of appeal.

Ms. Jo Richardson: My hon. Friend mentioned that if he had been given the time he would have drafted an amendment providing for a conscience register. A brief examination of amendment No. 45, which has not been selected, suggests that it would have covered that proposal. If we return to this subject on a future occasion, perhaps we may bear such a register in mind.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That must be done on another occasion and not now.

Ms. Richardson: That is what I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Doran: I have no intention of attempting to move such an amendment now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but obviously my hon. Friend and I are in agreement.
As a professional person, I know how difficult it is to entertain an appeal against one of my decisions. Solicitors do not tend to make decisions—they give advice. I know how nervous I am if any of my clients wishes to seek a second opinion. I suspect that members of the medical profession may feel intimidated by the suggestion of an appeal, because their decisions would be subject to examination by what I hope would be an independent appeals tribunal.
It is essential to look back over the 20 or more years of the Act's operation and consider the geographical disparities that the statistics reveal. Why is the number of abortions so much higher in one part of the country than in another? Why are there so many late abortions, with women having to turn to the private sector? Why cannot women obtain abortions that have been deemed necessary and that are within the law?

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) have any evidence of health authority officials deliberately causing delays and acting without any sense of urgency?

Mr. Doran: Even if I had such evidence, I would not attempt to present it here—I would look for another way. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) was, like myself, present when certain members of the Committee tabled a hit list—and I


certainly would not be prepared to go down that road. I am prepared to rest my argument on the statistics, which are very clear. It is more difficult for a woman to obtain an abortion in certain parts of the country than it is in others, and some are compelled to move out of the Health Service and into the private sector.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does my hon. Friend agree that he is not making any specific recommendations about the practical operation of the tribunal? We have all experienced hostile health authorities and their hostility towards tribunals. Such hostility might negate the good that a tribunal could do. It is an important issue for those of us who have suffered such experiences.

Mr. Doran: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. I deliberately did not go into detail because it would be far more than the House could cope with, given that we are dealing with an emotional topic. I am dealing now with the principle, and I leave to the Secretary of State the responsibility of drawing up the terms on which tribunals would operate.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am concerned about my hon. Friend's response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), when my hon. Friend referred to the existence in Committee of a hit list. Would he care to explain more about that hit list and what it was intended to achieve?

Mr. Doran: I shall be happy to explain but the matter is recorded in the Committee proceedings. It was suggested that there was a large number of practitioners in the private sector who were abusing the system—I believe that they were called moral criminals by one member of the Committee. It was suggested that action should be taken against the 11 consultant gynaecologists whose names were given to the Committee. That matter caused the Committee and its Chairman great concern. Indeed, the Chairman, rightly, made his views well known. The hon. Member who made those remarks in Committee is in the Chamber and he may wish to comment later.
It is important to stress that new clause 3 deals with a matter of principle. If it is successful, it would be for the Secretary of State to draft the detail of how the appeals tribunals would operate. One such tribunal would be set up for each area health authority, and it is essential that appeals be heard speedily. I can think of a number of examples of the way in which tribunals might operate, but the one that most comes to mind is the children's hearing system in Scotland, embodying the concept of what is known as the first lawful day hearing. When a child is, for example, taken into custody for committing a serious offence, or has been the subject of abuse or parental neglect and is taken into care, there is a hearing within seven days—but preferably on the first lawful day, which is usually the day after the child is taken into custody or care. Speed is essential.
There would also need to be a medical element in the membership of the tribunal, in order properly to assess the evidence put before it. Funding would be the responsibility of the local health board.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Can my hon. Friend say whether the tribunal's operation would allow for the Bill's current time limit of 18 weeks? if a tribunal

agreed to a delay, would that he deemed an exceptional circumstance, allowing for termination after the 18th week?

Mr. Doran: I trust that the rules for the tribunal would provide that where application has been made to a doctor, that would be the starting point, on the understanding that the woman qualified under all the other terms of the Act, but that does not detract from the necessity for speed. The whole House wishes to see a reduction in the number of late abortions, which are traumatic for the woman, for the staff and for everyone else involved, and it is disappointing that the Bill makes no attempt to deal with the problems that I have described in the Health Service. In Committee, many of the Bill's sponsors made lengthy attacks on the private sectors, which they would not have made in other contexts. Many of the issues raised by opponents of the Bill were dismissed out of hand, with a few grudging amendments which, if anything, make the Bill worse.
We witnessed in Committee from the sponsors of the Bill, and no doubt we will see again today, not a commitment to the system envisaged in the Bill but merely the first stage in a campaign to remove from the statute book the right to abortion. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) made that clear in Committee. To paraphrase his position, he said that it had taken 40 years to abolish slavery and that it might take 20 years to abolish abortionists, but that that was the intention. That clear and emphatic statement shows that there is no real commitment to the Bill. It is merely the first stage and its supporters will be back again and again until the right to abortion is removed altogether. Anyone considering voting for the Bill in its present form should bear that in mind.

Mr. Cyril Smith: The abolition of abortion or the repeal of the 1967 Act could occur only with the will of the House, so why is the hon. Gentleman getting his knickers in a twist?

Mr. Doran: I was not aware that they were in a twist. I was trying to make a serious point. The Bill purports to reduce the time limit while accepting the concept of abortion, but the sponsors do not believe in that concept. They are philosophically and ideologically opposed to it. That has been made clear in every statement that they have made and in every tactic that they have used against those of us who oppose the Bill. The House should be clear that those who support the Bill do not want an improvement in the system. They are not prepared to consider improvements in the Health Service——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying into a Second Reading debate. He must address himself to the new clause.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is difficult for my hon. Friend to remain within the bounds of order that you have described while developing his reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). This is a debating Chamber and you have to sit there and listen. If a valid debating point is made, my hon. Friend or, indeed, any other hon. Member must be able to respond to it. Some hon. Members may not be clear about what is meant by getting one's knickers in a twist, so it is necessary for my hon. Friend to deal with that. I hope he will expand on the


point. I should like to know what the hon. Member for Rochdale meant. Perhaps my hon. Friend knows. Perhaps you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help, but perhaps he will leave this to me.

Mr. Doran: As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I shall try not to stray out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The new clause is a sensible measure designed to deal with defects in the Bill and to provide some flexibility. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You and the House will know that I am not one to raise frivolous points of order or to waste the time of the House. When you came into the Chamber I was in the middle of making a point of order to Mr. Speaker about the deep unfairness of the way in which precedents have been changed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already raised that point with Mr. Speaker. In my hearing, a clear ruling was given. There is nothing that I can add to it now.

Mr. Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to waste time. I was not able to finish my point of order to Mr. Speaker. That is why I am raising it with you. If we had known Mr. Speaker's ruling about precedence, we should have put down a 24-week limit at the outset. Voting would then have taken place in strict order, downwards from 28 weeks, and we should have reached the Division on that issue before we ever reached 22 or 20 weeks. It is vital that people within and outside the House understand that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. There is nothing that I can add to Mr. Speaker's ruling.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have heard the frustrated cry from the other side. The hon. Gentleman tried to make that point earlier, and no doubt you heard part of what was said. The list of amendments is known as Mr. Speaker's "provisional" selection, which means that there is an opportunity to change it, an opportunity that is taken on some occasions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but Mr. Speaker said distinctly that he did not intend to change his selection of amendments. That is the conclusive answer to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: It may be for the convenience of the House if I do not dwell on new clause 3, introduced by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), but concentrate on amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42 in my name and in the names of right hon. and hon. Members from almost every political party in the House.
In my view, new clause 3 is confused. I hope that I am not being uncharacteristically offensive when I say that it looked as though it has been written out on the back of a

cigarette packet on the shuttle to London from Aberdeen. I shall urge my hon. Friends to vote against the new clause because it muddies the water and will be of no benefit to anyone concerned with this important issue.
My three amendments were tabled for one specific purpose. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir. B. Braine) successfully introduced a series of amendments in Committee which in my view, and that of those who put their names to my amendments, were deeply unsatisfactory. I hope that my right hon. Friend, for whom I and the whole House have great respect, will not consider it unduly insulting if I suggest that his amendments were wrecking amendments. My right hon. Friend is a seasoned and successful campaigner on many issues. The stand that he has always taken on abortion is well known. He opposes it in principle, and I respect his view. I submit that my right hon. Friend and those hon. Members who supported him in Committee passed that series of the amendments with only one purpose—further to wreck the original Abortion Act that was passed about 20 years ago.
The Committee made it clear that certification for an abortion could be signed only by medical practitioners or gynaecologists who work in the National Health Service. That is a gross insult to the many professional men and women who are members of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and who practise in the private sector. The Committee is saying that it does not trust those professional people and that they are charlatans.
One member of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos), went further. He said that he had a hit list; he had the names of clinics and qualified gynaecologists and obstetricians who were breaking the law. If that is correct, this is the right place and time for my hon. Friend to give us the names. I want the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute those people. They are giving a bad name to the medical profession. They are committing an offence. If I had such evidence, I would immediately give those names to the House today and pass them to the Director of Public Prosecutions. But if I did not have evidence, I would not have been so foolish or irresponsible as to raise those red herrings in Committee, and then be unable to give the names of the clinics and the people involved.
I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham is irresponsible or would in any way wish to deceive the House. This is therefore an ideal opportunity, while he is in his place, with substantial files in front of him—which no doubt will include that hit list—for him to stand up with the privilege of the House and give the names of the clinics and the doctors involved. If my hon. Friend would do so, I guarantee to write tomorrow to the Director of Public Prosecutions informing him of the remarks made in the House and of the list of names, and asking him to investigate the matter with a view to prosecution.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be an abuse of the privileges of this House to make accusations against individuals inside this House which, if he did not believe them, the hon. Member would not be prepared to make outside the House?

Mr. MacKay: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have seen many examples—mainly from the Opposition—of the irresponsible naming of people without evidence. I


conclude from the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has not sought to intervene that he is not sure of his facts. He is not prepared to name those clinics and people because he does not think that the allegation will stand up when submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We can only conclude from the silence that it was an irresponsible remark made by my hon. Friend in Committee. It would be best for the House and the Committee if he withdrew that remark.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Member consider an extension of the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (M r. Thurnham)? Is it not an even greater abuse of the privileges of the House to refer to the existence of a number of people and not be prepared to substantiate the allegation?

Mr. MacKay: I would, but I think that we have dwelt long enough on this matter. I want to move now to other parts of my amendment.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Many Conservative Members are surprised that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) has not availed himself of this opportunity, because it is of such crucial importance.

Mr. MacKay: I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham. All that I have done—out of common decency—is to give him the opportunity to present his case, which is his right. That he has declined to do.

Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend is aware that I was a member of the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) also produced in Committee what he alleged to be a tape recording of a conversation between one of those gynaecologists and a young woman. The gynaecologist deliberately persuaded the young woman, against her better judgment, to part with £450 to have an abortion which she did not want. The young woman had previously been counselled by Life or another such organisation. My hon. Friend refused to produce that tape, or a transcript of it. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham confirm who is mentioned in that tape?

Mr. MacKay: I am not responsible for my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham. If he wishes to pass that tape to anybody, no doubt he will do so. The House has noted that, in Committee, he said that he had not only a list of names, but a tape recording.
I refer now to the amendments introduced in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point. Of all people, Conservative Members should support the private sector of medicine. We believe in the National Health Service, but we believe also in the right of men and women to avail themselves of private medicine if they want it. If the amendments passed in Committee are sustained by the House today, many millions of women who use the private sector rather than the National Health Service for medical needs will have to seek advice from general practitioners and gynaecologists in the National Health Service. Imagine the pressure that that will put upon National Health Service hospitals. Imagine the pressure that it will put on gynaecological units. All hon. Members are worried about waiting lists in our hospitals. This will extend the waiting list. Ministers on the Treasury Bench, who are listening carefully to this debate, will be filled with horror at the idea that they will have to cope

with a large number of people in NHS hospitals who would normally use the private sector. I hope that we shall reject this part of the Bill and that Conservative Members will support the private sector of medicine and the right of patients to decide whether they want to be treated in the private sector or in the National Health Service.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many Opposition Members would be reluctant to defend the private sector and nervous of accusations of profit-making. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is more significant when an hon. Member like me says that there is no evidence of excessive fee-charging in the abortion sector? That is contrary to the slanders which are sometimes made about fees in the private sector. I have a duty to defend doctors who, although they practise in the private sector, are not charging unwarranted fees for abortions——

Mr. Cyril Smith: Absolute rubbish.

Mrs. Wise: I am trying to be brief. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is more convincing for me to defend doctors in that sense than it is for him?

Mr. MacKay: I concede that point. The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) is not noted for being a friend of capitalism. The hon. Lady and I disagree on almost every fundamental issue that comes before the House. I would have expected the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point to have been moved by Left-wing Socialists who are doctrinarily opposed to the private sector of medicine, not by a robust supporter such as him.

Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the eminent gynaecologist, Dr. Wendy Savage. who is observing our proceedings today, and who is not normally a friend of the policies embraced by Conservative Members on private enterprise, has informed me that not only is the private sector doing a useful job but that the skill of the private sector is greater than that in the NHS. The death rate is less than that in the National Health Service by a factor of 10. That information is published in the British Medical Journal by Dr. Peter Diggory FR COG——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough for an intervention.

Mr. MacKay: It would be unwise of me and unfair to the House to pursue that point, which I suspect is not quite relevant to the issue we are discussing.
I have established beyond reasonable doubt that great pressure would be put on NHS hospitals and gynaecological units if the Bill were passed as amended in Committee. 
11 am
There is another even more sinister aspect of the amendment passed in Committee. Let us imagine a woman living in a remote part of the country where there are few NHS gynaecologists and the distance to the nearest NHS hospital is considerable. If the nearest gynaecologist is fundamentally and morally opposed to abortion, she is stymied. The doctor will not sign the certificate. So there will be one rule for my constituents in Thames Valley, where there are plenty of hospitals and enlightened gynaecologists, and another for people living in remote parts of the United Kingdom, who might have the


misfortune to find that the only NHS gynaecologist in the region would never sign a certificate. That is why the private sector must be included.
There is another sinister feature. Let us take the case of a woman in a private sector hospital who is taken seriously ill while pregnant and needs to have an abortion. As the Bill is now drafted, that can only take place in a public hospital or approved place—a clinic that has been licensed in the private sector by the DHSS. The woman does not want an abortion; she is in a private sector hospital because she is a member of BUPA. The specialist dealing with her case says that she will lose her life if she does not have an abortion, but, as the law stands, he cannot perform that abortion in the hospital or clinic because it is not within the NHS and is not registered to perform abortions. Therefore, the woman will have to be driven in an ambulance some considerable distance to another hospital or clinic where two doctors or gynaecologists will have to certify that it is right that she should have an abortion. Only then will it be performed there. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) loves intervening from a sedentary position. We rarely see horn in the House. It is a pity that he cannot intervene more properly in the debate. We look forward to hearing him later.

Ms. Gordon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the circumstances he has described, and especially during a holiday period when it might be difficult to obtain a certificate from a consultant gynaecologist, a doctor in a private clinic might find himself faced with a choice between breaking the law and becoming a criminal or letting a patient die?

Mr. MacKay: I agree entirely with that telling intervention. We can think of other examples—foul weather, a snow storm, roads closed, and still a doctor would be breaking the law and committing a criminal offence if he carried out an abortion to save a woman's life, because he could not transfer her by ambulance to another hospital.
If the Bill proceeds today unamended, innocent women in this country will lose their lives because of the amendment passed in Committee. I have conclusively argued that any gynaecologist, wherever he happens to practise, should be able to certify. The amendment was nothing but a wrecking amendment to make abortion harder to obtain. It will do great damage to the NHS and make our constituents wait longer for gynaecological services—and it could lead to loss of life. I urge the House to support amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42.

Mr. David Alton: I have heard the arguments of the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) and I know that the House wants to make progress on this group of amendments, although the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) made an eloquent case in Committee. In ideal circumstances I would happily have supported the amendment moved there. I spoke last night to my right hon. and hon. Friends who are fellow sponsors of the Bill and we believe that the amendments would go some way to meeting some of the criticisms put by the hon. Member for Berkshire, East and other hon. Members in Committee. So I recommend that the House accept them.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) moved a new clause whose wording was defective in a number of respects. For instance, one would have to assume that the area health board that he referred to—it is a Scottish institution—would have its powers derogated to regional and area health authorities in England and Wales. Some of the other wording was also defective. There was, for example, no definition of "delay". I spoke to officers at the DHSS last night and have many misgivings about this. The issue could properly be re-examined in another place if there was a case to be made, but I do not think that it was made adequately this morning. The new clause could add to bureaucracy and cause as many problems as it attempts to solve. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South had the chances to raise the point in Committee but was unable to do so, but there will be a chance for these issues to be considered further in another place.
The subject of private clinics is regularly raised. I must remind the House that profit is involved. Although it may be dressed up as a surplus, we must remember that only 11 doctors and the clinics in which they work performed about 60 per cent. of all late abortions. For that they took £2 million.

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alton: I may be able to pre-empt the hon. Lady if she is about to say that this is because of the NHS. I remind the House that more than half of late abortions are not carried out on people from our country, so NHS delays can hardly be the reason.

Ms. Short: Many medical staff in Birmingham share my ethnic background—they are Irish Catholic immigrants—and the abortion law on the statute book is consequently not available to women there, which is gravely wrong. That means that only women who can raise the money go into the charitable private sector.
What is the Government's view? Is it that the Birmingham practice should change and there should be planning within the NHS to extend to all women the right that they have in theory under the law, or does he just want to stop people having abortions? Is that his game?

Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady is wrong to suggest that any games are being played. In Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) put an alternative view. She said that facilities were available throughout the city of Birmingham. We live in a country that allows 600 abortions every working day and 172,000 every year, and the door that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) said 20 years ago would never be left wide open has led to abortion on demand.
If hon. Members disagree with that, perhaps they will accept the view of consultant gynaecologists, 700 of whom answered a Gallup survey; 60 per cent. of them said that, in their view, abortion on demand was available in this country.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he accepts the principle of equal provision within the law?

Mr. Alton: Of course I confirm that, and I am grateful for that helpful intervention.

Mrs. Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alton: I shall give way in a moment. I am grateful for the interest that hon. Members are taking in the Bill, but I hope that they will allow me to make a little more progress. We should challenge the assumption that in itself abortion is a desirable operation. We should seek radical alternatives to the defeatism that abortion represents.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: Would the hon. Gentleman accept from those of us who have looked at the statistics about Birmingham that if there were equal provision in the law, which he has said that he would accept, it would mean an increase in abortions in the Birmingham area? Is he suggesting that people are carrying out abortions that do not meet the strict criteria laid down in the 1967 Act? That is what he suggests when he says that there is abortion on demand. The law does not permit abortion on demand.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady knows as well as I do that the 35 people who run the private counselling clinics and agencies also run abortion clinics. That financial link should be broken. It is a scandal that people can make money out of advising people to have an abortion. I have had many thousands of letters from people who say that if they had known about the psychological and physical consequences of abortion they would have done otherwise.
Abortion carries consequences for everybody involved—for the doctors and nurses and for the women and children. A 30-bed clinic was at the heart of a Department of Health and Social Security investigation in 1985 after one of its clients, a 21-year-old Spanish student, bled to death when her abortion went wrong. That clinic charges up to £385 a time, and the later the abortion the more people pay. A report called "The Charter of Tears" in The Sunday Mirror said:
One 18-year-old girl described the clinic as 'a production line'. She said: 'Everybody was in a terrible rush.' Another girl said: 'I had my operation at 11 am and I was out by 2 pm.
To try to pretend that this is love, care or support for the woman or for the child is a travesty of the truth. All that abortion involves is violence and death. On that note I urge the House to accept the amendments in the spirit in which they were moved by the hon. Member for Berkshire, East and to reject the new clause of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): In view of what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has said, it might be helful it I were now to intervene briefly to assist the House as far as I can. I shall be brief because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and that the House wishes to make progress. As far as is possible in speaking about this matter I shall be factual. As I said on Second Reading, I see my task as the Minister for Health to assist the House in making up its mind and not to express a view on behalf of the Government.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has said that he is minded to accept the amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay). There is relatively little by way of factual information or further comment that I can give to assist the House about those amendments. The advice given to me is that if the amendments are accepted abortion in the private sector in and after the 18th week would need to be advised by a member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and to be certified by two registered

medical practitioners, as at present. In practice, one of those would almost always be a member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists who had advised in terms of the first half of the proposition. That is very little different from the existing position, since one of the two doctors currently certifying abortions over 18 weeks has almost always been admitted as a member of the royal college. I see no particular difficulties about the acceptance of those amendments.

Ms. Short: Private clinics and uneven provision around the country cause many late abortions, as I am sure the Minister knows. Those of us who are concerned about late abortions—unlike the promoter of the Bill—think that it is crucial for the National Health Service to be required to plan its abortion provision within the law throughout the country. If that were done enormous numbers of late abortions would be avoided. Will the Minister look seriously at that and at the prospect of making that change so that we can prevent the distress of late abortion? He could achieve that.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady is bringing us to the underlying purpose, as I understand it, of new clause 3 which was moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) and to which I was about to turn. I start by acknowledging the feelings expressed that there may well be some variation in the attitudes of those concerned with these matters in different parts of the country. As I said on Second. Reading, it is easier to note that problem than to see what can readily be done about it unless we go down the path of making appointments to gynaecological posts throughout the country dependent upon an interrogation of the potential appointee in order to ascertain his views about abortion. That would be to set up some kind of quota system for those who were "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion" to be appointed in particular localities. The House will see that that proposition is fraught with very great difficulty.
While acknowledging the problem, I am not able to respond in quite the way that the hon. Lady would like 'by giving an easy answer along the lines that she has suggested. I am sure that the House would not wish me to take a great deal of time. For that reason I intend to restrict the number of interventions that I accept. However, I shall again give way to the hon. Lady.

Ms. Short: My point is extremely important and has nothing to do with time wasting. I am second to none in defending the right of people to stand on conscience, but that right cannot prevent the proper implementation of the law throughout the country. We can stand firmly by the right of all medical staff to obey their conscience on abortion, but also impose on the National Health Service a duty I o plan proper abortion facilities within the law in all areas. Surely that is possible. I appeal to the Minister to plan for it because it would prevent late abortions and io far more than this dishonest Bill.

Mr. Newton: Once again I appreciate the hon. Lady's sincerity, but I do not think that there is a great deal that I can add to what I have said about what I perceive to be the difficulties of going down the track that appears to be implied by the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Wise: If the Minister looks at the record he will find that at one stage his Department gave exactly that kind of advice: that each area should make sure that it appointed a sufficient number of people who were not subject to conscientious bar so that facilities could be available throughout the country. If he looks back he will find that that was done. I suggest that it is quite proper and in no sense a hostile interrogation. It is simply to ensure that bars will not be placed in the way of an adequate National Health Service in every area.

Mr. Newton: My understanding is different from that of the hon. Lady. However, I shall check it in the light of what she has said. I do not resile from my view that it would be wrong if people seeking gynaecological and obstetric appointments in hospitals all over Britain had to depend for appointment on the declaration of a specific view. That would be an extremely uneasy situation for health authorities, for Ministers and for the House.
New clause 3 would introduce a formal appeal mechanism into the Abortion Act 1967 as a whole. It would not, of course, simply apply to applications for abortions over 18 weeks which are, generally, the abortions dealt with in the Bill.
Every scrap of advice that I have, which I will not set out at length, says that the new clause is technically defective—for example, in its terminology, which refers to area health boards, which are bodies not currently known to the law. It is technically defective in a number of other respects on which I could elaborate. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has already touched on a particular difficulty, which is the reference to "any delay", with no definition of "delay". A delay could mean, in theory, a delay of a matter of minutes and, without some definition—a definition that would be extremely difficult to achieve in a workable form—the clause would be inoperable.
Therefore, I have to tell the House as clearly as I can that were it to take the view that the new clause represented a principle to which it wished to agree, substantial further work would be required in the other place to put the clause into a form in which there would be any chance of its working. I have some other serious reservations, which I should set out for the House.
In moving his new clause, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said that he acknowledged that there should be medical representation on these tribunals, but that there should also be a lay element. It occurs to me, and will no doubt have occurred to the House, that quite a number of the decisions that would in theory be appealed against under this proposal would be clinical decisions, at least in the mind of the doctor who made them, and in terms of the law. It is open to question what the response of the profession would be, as its members would see many difficulties where clinical decisions or decisions taken on a clinical basis were subject to review by a group that was not made up of clinicians. That would raise the question whether the decisions by such a body could or would be implemented by a clinician who would have carry out the abortion.
It is clear that nothing that a termination appeals tribunal could decide could compel the clinician to carry out an abortion against his wishes or judgment. I see the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) shaking his head. I am making these points only to illustrate some of the difficulties that would be entailed in developing this new clause into something that would be sustainable. I am

not saying that I am convinced that those difficulties are not surmountable. I am saying that there has been little time for us, quite apart from the House, to consider them, but they appear to me to be formidable, and would undoubtedly introduce a new element of difficulty and complexity into the changes of law that are being proposed.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The right hon. Gentleman has said that there might be a possibility of the tribunal coming out in favour of the applicant, but the applicant then having difficulty in finding a clinician to carry out the recommendation of the tribunal. That suggests that the clinicians have a veto on the rights of the individual that have been upheld by the tribunal. Surely, whether the wording is correct or not, we should be finding a way to sustain the rights of the individual rather than providing mechanisms for vetos.

Mr. Newton: I have already recognised the importance of that point, and I hope that my remarks will not be considered by the hon. Gentleman or others who may support the new clause as being made in a negative spirit. They are designed simply to reveal the difficulties of going down the track that has been suggested and the undoubted need for further substantial thought, not only in drafting but about many of the concepts involved. I am perhaps saying no more to the House than this: in a matter that is already fraught with difficulty and complexity, the House will need to consider whether it wishes to introduce this additional and substantially fresh element to the subject matter of the Bill. In the end, that judgment is for the House, not me to make, but it is important that I should make clear to the House the technical difficulties that I envisage and the difficulties that there would be in developing a clause in line with new clause 3.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: No, I wish to conclude. Beyond that, the issue of principle involved is one for the House to decide on and not one for me to tell the House what it should decide.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I must refute some of the allegations made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), particularly those he has made in his many attacks, both in Committee and in the House, on the private sector. I do not normally defend the private sector, as my hon. Friends know, but as a former trustee of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which is involved in 30,000 abortions a year, I must refute the allegation that the directors of charitable private organisations such as BPAS who do a great service for women in carrying out abortions that are not available under the NHS, are paid for their work. We volunteer for that work because we think that it is essential.
From the time of the reform of the abortion law in 1967, the NHS has been unable to organise itself to cope with the need for legal and safe abortion. As a result, waiting lists have developed and, as a former member of a regional hospital board, I know full well that in my area, because of the attitude of the consultant gynaecologist and obstetrician at the University hospital of Wales, we were unable, although we were responsible for the running of the NHS in that part of Wales, to implement a day care clinic. Therefore, women in that area were unable to have


swift and safe abortions and were forced to travel long distances outside the area to obtain abortions. That consultant gynaecologist prevailed on other gynaecologists and obstetricians in his department to take a similar attitude.

Mrs. Gorman: On the point about safety, and in support of charities such as the BPAS, may I ask whether the hon. Lady is aware that charities have the safest of all records in assisting people with abortions, and that in the 20 years since the Abortion Act 1967 was passed there has been only one death out of the 600,000 cases with which they have dealt? That must be one of the most outstanding safety records.

Mrs. Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. It shows how responsible and careful these charities are. She has also reminded me that one general practitioner and one consultant gynaeologist authorise abortions, and the rule in the BPAS is that the consultant gynaecologist never authorises the termination because we want to prevent the gynaecologist who is performing the abortion from profiting from his decisions. To require an NHS consultant to certify for late abortions would affect women who go to those charitable organisations.
If terminations were freely available on the NHS, there would be a different argument again, but there is no mechanism—as I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree—within the NHS to ensure that an adequate service is provided for all women who need it. Despite the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the NHS in 1979, of which I was a member, and in which I participated closely, particularly on these discussions, it was recommended that in all hospital regions 75 per cent. of terminations should be carried out within the NHS and that facilities should be made available. My hon. Friends will know that today less than half of terminations carried out in Britain are carried out under the NHS.
In its report on late abortions in England and Wales, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists stated that one fifth of women who have abortions in the NHS between 20 and 23 weeks were medically referred by 12 weeks. The college concluded:
The abortion services contribute to avoidable delays.
Thus many women decide to go into the private sector, where abortions do not have to take their place among a host of other operations. They are carried out without the dangerous and distressing delays that take place in the NHS.

Ms. Short: A few moments ago my hon. Friend said that she wished to correct the wrong impression given by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I am sure that it was only accidentally that he gave the House a false impression this morning. He said that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) contested in Committee my claim that a proper abortion service on the NHS was not available in Birmingham. In central Birmingham, 6 per cent. of abortions take place in the NHS. Without the charitable sector, women in Birmingham are not entitled to that which the law provides. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill would not like the false impression that he gave to remain on the record.

Mrs. Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend for making that important intervention. The percentage to which she referred is abysmally low and illustrates the patchy provision that is made for women throughout Britain. The NHS service depends greatly on the area in which one lives.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): As a former chairman of the Central Birmingham health authority, I think that I am right in saying that, wherever the abortions were performed a large proportion of them were paid for by the NHS.

Mrs. Clwyd: I thank the Minister for making that point. It shows the fail h that the NHS has in the provision that is made by the charitable sector. It is prepared to pay for terminations that it cannot carry out itself. It is a tribute to the work that is done by the private sector.
There are some positive reasons for preferring the non-NHS sector, including greater privacy and availability of intensive counselling. It is insulting to suggest that the private sector not concerned about counselling both before and after a termination. That was an important part of the work of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. I say to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that it is insulting to the private sector to suggest that it does not take great account of counselling both before and after termination.
It is a tribute to the quality of service that is provided by the charitable sector that several health authorities use its clinics on an agency basis. In 1986, the last year for which we have figures, about 7,000 abortions were provided in that way. The private and charitable sector is tightly controlled by the DHSS in all aspects of its work, including prices. The pregnancy advisory services carry out abortions for between £280 and £300. High staff-patient ratios and extensive resuscitation and other equipment demanded by the DHSS mean that the actual cost of late abortions is much higher than the sum which is charged for them. Late abortions that are carried out by abortion charities are subsidised by other operations. The cost of an early abortion is about £150 to £200. That is also the average cost in the NHS.
I resent the remarks of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that gave a distorted impression of current British abortion legislation. In fact, it is one of the least liberal pieces of legislation to be found in Europe. Eight to 10 western European countries allow abortion on request during the first 12 weeks or more. Most of these countries permit abortion on specific grounds after that limit, usually for medical conditions, foetal handicap or social and psychological reasons. Such abortions are available up to 24 weeks.
We believe that the best way to reduce late abortions is by improving the availability and acceptability of the NHS abortion services, increasing contraceptive provision for young people, offering realistic sex and family life education in schools and developing more sensitive techniques for the diagnosis of foetal abnormality. However, there will always be a need for abortion late in pregnancy for a minority of women. I stress that it is only a minority. It is vital that choice is retained. That is why we oppose the Bill in its entirety. I oppose new clause 3.


The Bill was not changed fundamentally in Committee and it still restricts the availability of legal abortions to the first 17 weeks of pregnancy.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said about the charities that perform abortions. Does she agree that we must not confuse the charities with the private clinics, which carry out a large proportion of the very late abortions that are carried out on foreign women? Perhaps we should take to heart what she has said about the NHS system, but could we not convince other countries that they should put their houses in order? If that were done, Britain would not be the foetal dustbin of Europe.

Mrs. Clwyd: I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. It was discussed in some detail in Committee. There was an element of xenophobia in the arguments advanced by certain hon. Members in Committee when they talked about "foreign women", as though they were a group to be denigrated. The term "foreign women" includes women from Northern Ireland—perhaps the hon. Lady was not aware of that.

Mrs. Peacock: Yes, I was.

Mrs. Clwyd: The needs of women in the United Kingdom includes those of women in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not wish to deny those women the opportunity of obtaining an abortion in Britain, bearing in mind the particular difficulties within their own country. It is important to keep "foreign women" in perspective and not to use the term in the xenophobic way that some Conservative Members adopted so frequently in Committee.

Mrs. Wise: I agree completely with the factors to which my hon. Friend referred that would reduce the number of late abortions and abortions in general. Does she agree that she should add to the list social factors such as homelessness and poverty, which cause desperation among women? Improving social factors would be an excellent and constructive way of reducing desperation which leads to abortion.

Mrs. Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend for making that important observation.
Those who are most concerned about reducing late abortions seem not to share the same concern for the conditions in which many of the women who seek late abortions have to live. As they are responsible for much of the legislation that will make it even more difficult for women who already live in poverty, bad housing, poor social conditions and in families where unemployment is high, they should realise that there is an element of hypocrisy in some of their arguments. If they were as vociferous on the need for improving social conditions as they are on reducing late abortions, I am sure that we would all approve and support them in their attempts to improve conditions.

Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Lady has raised a crucial issue. The Bill came out of Committee largely unchanged. On Second Reading the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said that it was not his intention to be intransigent—[Interruption.] He was intransigent in Committee. On Second Reading however, he said:

if I do not keep my word … hon. Members will have the chance to vote against the Bill on Report"—[Official Report, 22 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 1240.]
Would the hon. Lady care to comment on that?

Mrs. Clwyd: The Bill has not been fundamentally changed. If the Bill had been amended in Committee in a helpful way, we would be having a different debate today. Indeed, the amendments that were accepted in Committee will make the Bill even more difficult to implement.

Mrs. Gorman: The statistics of foreign women having abortions also includes women from Scotland and, of course, from Eire—they are technically foreign, but they are allowed to vote in this country. There are a large number of such women. Incidentally, none of our amendments against the Bill was accepted.

Mrs. Clwyd: The hon. Lady has raised an important point. The two limited exceptions that were made in the Bill relate to abortions on the ground of specified foetal handicap or rape or incest committed against girls under 18. In Committee we said that those exceptions were hedged with bureaucracy. They cater for a small proportion of abortions that are carried out after 17 weeks.
Evidence given to the House of Lords Select Committee on infant life preservation shows that women who have abortions at this late stage of pregnancy
usually do so for very pressing reasons.
Under the terms of the Bill as it now stands, and because our amendments were not accepted, legal abortions will no longer be available for such women.
Although the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and his supporters would argue that they have made major concessions, we consider them to be minor. Indeed, the hon. Member said that he even found some of the concessions repugnant. He said that he felt compelled to put them forward
only for the reasons of political expediency.
We appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to get the Bill through the House, but even the minor concessions were made for the most cynical of reasons. I stress the fact that in the final hours of the Committee the hon. Gentleman stated:
Although we shall not win all the arguments on the matter this time. … I shall want to return to them in years to come. We shall continue to challenge this aspect and I want to put down a marker about that now."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 30 March 1988; c. 271.]
He made his intentions quite clear. After the first debate on this issue, perhaps some of us were under the illusion that he was prepared to be much more lenient in his approach to the Bill. That notion was disabused in Committee.

Mrs. Mahon: With regard to foreign women, may I say that it caused great offence to many people who contacted me that it was possible to speak in such a dehumanising way about women who were simply women in need. If the Bill is passed, our women will become someone else's foreign women. I believe that that description was one of the more offensive tactics that was used by those supporting the Bill.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information.
When I was a Member of the European Parliament and attended a meeting of the Socialist group in Dublin, I caused considerable offence to some of my fellow Socialists because I looked at the election manifesto of the Irish


Socialist party and discovered that there was no provision for dealing with women who required terminations. I am conscious of the pressing need of those women who are denied terminations within their own country. Our system is not the most liberal within Western Europe—it is the least liberal in comparison to eight other countries—but we should be pleased about the help that we offer to women in need; we should not denigrate that.
11.45 am
I oppose new clause 3. I am sorry that I have to oppose my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran). I believe that the problems that have been caused as a result of the amendments accepted in Committee are pertinent to the provisions of that clause and we need a number of answers.
The clause creates an appeals tribunal procedure for women who are either refused an abortion under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967 or when there has been a delay in reaching a decision on whether a woman has grounds for an abortion. It appears that the new clause seeks to tackle the problem of delays for women seeking termination by creating a new right of appeal. The proposed provisions, however, are inadequate and ineffective.
One of the amendments accepted in Committee allows girls who are under 18 a termination after 17 weeks if they have been victims of rape or incest, but not for girls who are a day over 18. That was the effect of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). How would new clause 3 affect that? This matter could have been debated if our amendments Nos. 12 and 13 had been selected. The fact that they have not been selected has caused many of us great distress.
The Bill's provisions will create enormous difficulties for doctors. We hotly debated this issue in Committee. Is the hon. Member for Mossley Hill suggesting that rape or incest becomes less traumatic once a woman has had her 18th birthday? If something is not desirable at the age of 18 or under, why should 18 and one day, 19, 20 or 21 be acceptable? Surely women who are victims of rape and incest have an equal right to terminate the pregnancy if they so wish.

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Lady confirm that, as recorded by the DHSS, no abortion was performed on the grounds of rape or incest on an over-aged woman?

Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister made the position clear in Committee. The DHSS does not require the recording of such facts. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill is well aware of that because the Minister explained it to him in Committee.
We were not able to hear the arguments from the hon. Member for Mossley Hill in Committee on abortions for women aged over 18. It is ridiculous for the proponents of the Bill to argue that victims of rape and incest aged 18 or under should be able to have a late abortion while those over 18 should not. That is completely ludicrous. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill was not prepared to answer that in Committee.
There are legal and medical difficulties for a doctor in assessing whether a woman has been raped.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Before the hon. Lady leaves the point about rape, will she explain or interpret the amendment that was moved by my hon. Friend the

Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and accepted in Committee about how rape can be proved? Does the hon. Lady believe that entirely by mistake my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has given us a terrific let-out clause almost for abortion on demand? It would appear that any woman can claim that she has been raped and have an abortion if she is under 18. That is surely not what my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone intended. I can tell by the look on my hon. Friend's face that that is not what she intended. Perhaps she will intervene shortly. Knowing how lucid the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) is, I suspect that she will be able to answer that question amicably for me.

Mrs. Clwyd: Exactly. My hon. Friend has made an important point. Who will judge the case when a woman claims that she has been raped or has been the victim of incest? Will the termination appeals procedure judge that case, as suggested in new clause 3? We are worried about that.
Will there be false allegations of rape from a young woman desperate for an abortion? Will doctors become suspicious of anyone claiming to have been raped who does not request a termination until late in pregnancy? Should those be matters for appeal through the procedures spelt out in new clause 3? It is important that we receive answers to those questions.
In 1967, the original Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill included rape as one of the grounds for abortion. However, that was subsequently removed because it was argued that it placed doctors in an invidious position. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) would place doctors in a similar position. Doctors would be able to make a decision only on a woman's mental or physical state. It was considered appropriate to deal with such difficult cases under the mental health provisions. I suggest that the Mental Health Act 1983 has worked well in that respect because it has given doctors sufficient flexibility to deal with difficult circumstances.
I remind the House that the Select Committee reporting on the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill stated:
The Committee would not wish to see any impediment placed in the way of the victim of rape and incest who is desirous of terminating her pregancy.
That highlights the problems with the Abortion (Amendment) Bill as it stands, as it removes the flexibility of the law to deal with those distressing cases. That is one reason why I must oppose new clause 3.
It is the intention of new clause 3 to ensure that a woman who is unreasonably delayed by administrative or other factors can receive an abortion after the time limit at the beginning of the 18th week. If that is the intention, it is not made sufficiently clear, and new clause 3 fails to achieve that objective. As the new clause is drafted, it does not permit an abortion to be performed after the beginning of the 18th week, even if the appeals tribunal finds in the woman's favour and agrees that she has been delayed unnecessarily. A victim of rape or incest may find herself in that position.
New clause 3 is an enabling provision which grants the Secretary of State for Social Services the power to set up the tribunal. However, it gives no specification of the tribunal's nature or powers. That means that the detail of how the tribunal would operate would not be open to debate in the House. The new clause contains no provision for any regulations drawn up by the Secretary of State to


be brought before the House as a statutory instrument which would be subject to annulment by resolution of either House, and important points of principle would therefore be determined by the Secretary of State without the opportunity to challenge them.

Ms. Short: We all agree that the drafting of the clause is unsatisfactory and needs improvement. What we need to discuss is the principle of the right of appeal. If that is supported in the House, as I hope that it will be, we will ask the other place to tidy it up and improve it.

Mrs. Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which I agree is very important. These issues are of considerable significance, and cannot be left to secondary legislation which Parliament may not have an opportunity to discuss.
The new clause does not specify the powers that the tribunal would have. Could it require the abortion to be carried out if it upheld the woman's appeal? If so, what sanction would it have if a medical practitioner refused to carry out the operation? What powers would it have if it found in a woman's favour after the beginning of the 18th week? Would it have powers to compensate a woman who had been delayed beyond the statutory time limit and had to continue her pregnancy, although she had grounds for an abortion under the 1967 Act?
The new clause does not specify a period within which the appeal must be heard. Is it seven days, seven weeks or seven months? Unless there is a clear requirement for a tribunal to meet and hear the appeal quickly, the right to appeal in itself will be totally meaningless.
Would additional resources—I look to the Ministers here—be available to the health authorities to ensure that the appeals procedure was speedy and efficient? Given the difficulty of getting any additional resources out of Conservative Members, there may be some reason to doubt that such resources would be forthcoming.
The concept of a tribunal procedure would create yet more bureaucracy for women seeking abortions. It would be an additional ordeal for such women to have to face a tribunal. Would there be provision for them to be represented, and in what way? Would they have to be medically examined by members of the tribunal? Who would the members of the tribunal be, and how would they be selected? What would be the position of the doctors who had refused the abortion, or any others who were responsible for delay? Would lack of resources be a defence if the woman had not had the termination carried out because of a shortage of beds or medical personnel?
While I am sure that the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South is to try to help women by minimising unnecessary delays for those seeking an abortion, I suggest that the new clause is inadequate as drafted, and would create a new and unwieldy procedure which would work against women's interests.
There is a minor drafting point. The new clause refers in subsection (1) to an area health board and in subsection (2) to an area health authority, although both appear to refer to the same body. In fact, there are now district health authorities in England and Wales—I am sorry to say that there is no longer any regional hospital board—and health boards in Scotland, so we have a less

democratic Health Service in Wales than in the rest of the country. Both should be included in both subsections if the power is to extend to England, Wales and Scotland.
Again, I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider their position very carefully before they go through the Lobbies today. After hearing the arguments spelt out in Committee by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and his colleagues, it is our belief that their real intention is not to improve on the 1967 Act. Their true intention is to repeal the 1967 Act in its entirety. It would have been honourable for them to have said today, "That is our real intention. We do not want to improve on the Act. We want it to be scrapped altogether." We would respect their position if it were thus stated. To suggest that this is a way of reducing late abortions is a myth and a delusion.

12 noon

Mr. Cyril Smith: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to be taking a long time to clear the Lobbies. Would it be possible to investigate that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am keeping a careful eye on the time. It is clear that many hon. Members wish to take part in the vote. So far, the Division has not been overlong.

The House having divided: Ayes 265, Noes 222.

Division No. 287]
[12.18 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Boateng, Paul


Allen, Graham
Boyes, Roland


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashdown, Paddy
Buchan, Norman


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Caborn, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cartwright, John


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bell, Stuart
Clelland, David


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cohen, Harry


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Blair, Tony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Blunkett, David
Corbyn, Jeremy





Cousins, Jim
McAllion, John


Cox, Tom
McCartney, Ian


Cunningham, Dr John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dalyell, Tarn
McKelvey, William


Darling, Alistair
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McTaggart, Bob


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McWilliam, John


Dobson, Frank
Madden, Max


Doran, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Martlew, Eric


Eadie, Alexander
Maxton, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Meale, Alan


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Michael, Alun


Fatchett, Derek
Michie. Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Miscampbell, Norman


Fisher, Mark
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flannery, Martin
Morgan, Rhodri


Flynn, Paul
Morley, Elliott


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foster, Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foulkes, George
Murphy, Paul


Fyfe, Maria
Nellist, Dave


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


George, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Golding, Mrs Llin
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Parry, Robert


Gould, Bryan
Patchett, Terry


Graham, Thomas
Pendry, Tom


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Prescott, John


Grocott, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Harman, Ms Harriet
Redmond, Martin


Haynes, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Reid, Dr John


Henderson, Doug
Richardson, Jo


Hinchliffe, David
Rogers, Allan


Holland, Stuart
Rooker, Jeff


Hood, Jimmy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rowlands, Ted


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ruddock, Joan


Howells, Geraint
Sedgemore, Brian


Hoyle, Doug
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Ingram, Adam
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


John, Brynmor
Snape, Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Straw, Jack


Kilfedder, James
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Walley, Joan


Kirkwood, Archy
Wareing, Robert N.


Knox, David
Wells, Bowen


Leadbitter, Ted
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Leighton, Ron
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Wilson, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Winnick, David


Litherland, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Livsey, Richard



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mr. Sam Galbraith and Mr. Dafydd Wigley


Loyden, Eddie



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Atkins, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Alton, David
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arbuthnot, James
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Battle, John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Beggs, Roy


Aspinwall, Jack
Beith, A. J.






Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fry, Peter


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gardiner, George


Benyon, W.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gill, Christopher


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gorst, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gower, Sir Raymond


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bowis, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bradley, Keith
Hannam, John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harris, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Haselhurst, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Hawkins, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Hayes, Jerry


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hayward, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burns, Simon
Heffer, Eric S.


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butcher, John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butler, Chris
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butterfill, John
Hill, James


Callaghan, Jim
Hind, Kenneth


Canavan, Dennis
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cash, William
Holt, Richard


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Home Robertson, John


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Churchill, Mr
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunter, Andrew


Clay, Bob
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Irvine, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jack, Michael


Conway, Derek
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Janner, Greville


Corbett, Robin
Jessel, Toby


Couchman, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cummings, John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Curry, David
Kennedy, Charles


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Key, Robert


Day, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dewar, Donald
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Douglas, Dick
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dover, Den
Lambie, David


Dunn, Bob
Lamond, James


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Emery, Sir Peter
Lilley, Peter


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Livingstone, Ken


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fearn, Ronald
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McAvoy, Thomas


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrea, Rev William


Forman, Nigel
McCrindle, Robert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Forth, Eric
McFall, John


Fox, Sir Marcus
McGrady, Eddie


Fraser, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)





Maclean, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sims, Roger


Maginnis, Ken
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Malins, Humfrey
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Mans, Keith
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maples, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marland, Paul
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Marlow, Tony
Soley, Clive


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Speller, Tony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Squire, Robin


Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maude, Hon Francis
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Stern, Michael


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stevens, Lewis


Miller, Hal
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Stott, Roger


Moate, Roger
Sumberg, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Summerson, Hugo


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mudd, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mullin, Chris
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Needham, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thorne, Neil


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thurnham, Peter


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tracey, Richard


Page, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Paice, James
Trippier, David


Paisley, Rev Ian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patnick, Irvine
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Viggers, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Pawsey, James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waldegrave, Hon William


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wall, Pat


Portillo, Michael
Wallace, James


Primarolo, Dawn
Waller, Gary


Rathbone, Tim
Ward, John


Redwood, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Renton, Tim
Watts, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wheeler, John


Robertson, George
Whitney, Ray


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wilshire, David


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Nicholas


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Woodcock, Mike


Sayeed, Jonathan
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Noes:


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. Alan Amos.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Quwstions put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided:— Ayes180, Noes 306.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr.Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, there were a considerable number of points of order expressing great concern about what we understand to be the order in which the amendments on timing will be debated. As the morning has progressed, there seems to have been growing concern about the possible consequences, because, instead of having a straightforward descending series of timings, we


are faced with a form of legislative roulette in which it is possible that what seems likely to be the general view of the House—that a 24-week period is best—will probably be the last to be voted upon. So, almost by accident, that period may not be reached in spite of its being most probably the general view of the House.
I know that a considerable number of hon. Members who are in favour of the Bill have said all along—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if they would keep quiet because I do not think that they will dispute what I say. They have said that they want the House to have an opportunity to declare its view once and for all and in the firmest possible way on the maximum number of weeks. It seems to many of us that the best way to do that is to ensure that the decision on the 24-week period is not taken at the end of the series of votes. To leave it where Mr. Speaker has left it in his provisional selection is likely to lead to considerable disorder, dissatisfaction and the very great possibility that the basic view of the House will not be achieved.
Mr. Speaker said that he was bound by contradictory precedents. They were the prcedents set by the Corrie Bill and by the general custom that amendments are taken in the order in which they are submitted. Those are conflicting precedents and it is quite reasonable for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or for Mr. Speaker to set a new precedent by saying that an orderly, seemly and rational consideration of these time limits is the best way for the House to go about its business because that will do good to its reputation. Many of us fear that if we do not do it that way the reputation of the House will be harmed and that there is a strong possibility that the general view of the House will not go through.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Many hon. Members were in the House at the beginning of the debate when we had fairly extensive points of order which Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am dealing with a point of order. Mr. Speaker made it clear at the time that before he made his selection he had considered extremely carefully the precedents and the arguments. He made quite clear the reasons for his decision and it is certainly not for me to go back on that decision. I suggest to the House that it would be advisable to get on with the debate. It may well be that the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has very fairly outlined can be dealt with if we get on quickly with the debate.

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the day I raised with Mr. Speaker the question of having a Division on amendments Nos. 40 and 41 and he said that he would allow a Division on amendment No. 40 or No. 41. In view of what has been said in the debate and the words of the promoter of the Bill, who said that he was prepared to accept amendments Nos. 40 and 41, will you ensure that if we get to that point, the House will have a chance to amend the Bill to include amendments Nos. 40 and 41 and consequential amendment No. 42?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have taken note of what was said about that. Of course I cannot anticipate whether time will allow the House to come to such decisions. The amendments do not come up for decision until after the next main debate.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to speak about Back Benchers' rights in this matter. We are dealing with amendments to do with time limits, the number of weeks, and Mr. Speaker has chosen amendments that allow us to discuss 20, 24 and 26 weeks. If those are scrapped the period of 18 weeks which is contained in the Bill will stand. I put my name to an amendment that was signed by many other hon. Members for 27 weeks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments. That is what the hon. Gentleman is doing.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate Mr. Speaker's selection.

Clause 1

TIME-LIMIT FOR TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY

Ms. Richardson: I beg to move amendment No. 2, page 1, line 6, leave out 'beginning of the 18th' and insert '26th'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'beginning of the 18th' and insert '20th completed'.
No. 5, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'beginning of the 18th' and insert '22nd completed'.
No. 7, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'beginning of the 18th' and insert 'end of the 24th'.

Ms. Richardson: In Committee we probed every aspect of the Bill as amended by its sponsors—[Interruption.]

Ms. Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Will hon. Members who do not wish to take part in the debate leave the Chamber quietly and quickly?

Ms. Richardson: I apologise if hon. Members could not hear what I was saying. I was simply referring to the fact that in Committee, those opposing the Bill probed every conceivable aspect of the Bill, as amended by its sponsors. We maintained consistently on Second Reading and in Committee that there was no substantiated evidence that the Abortion Act 1967 is being abused or misused by women or doctors. Most importantly, we emphasised that all the evidence shows that the upper time limit of 28 weeks is treated with the greatest of respect by women and by doctors in England and Wales, and by women and doctors in Scotland, where there is effectively no upper time limit and fewer late abortions are performed than in England and Wales. I have moved amendment No. 2, to allow abortions up to 26 weeks. I have an amendment down for 27 weeks, as I did on the Corrie Bill, as that is the number


of weeks that is nearest to 28. One has to remember that as doctors take off two or four weeks, effectively, the period is less than 26 weeks anyway.
We probed every aspect of the Bill, as amended, while we maintained our position that no change in the upper limit was required and that the time limit from the beginning of the 18 weeks was unacceptable. It became clear during the course of our discussions that the sponsors of the Bill take an absolutist and fundamentalist line on abortion. On innumerable occasions, each one of them has reiterated that he or she is opposed to all abortions and is willing to barter with women's bodies and gamble with children's lives to try to maximise support for the Bill and inflict a substantial blow on the 1967 Act, which has given women and doctors 20 years of safe and legal operations.
In choosing the arbitrary time limit from the beginning of 18 weeks, the sponsors of the Bill have sought to set the terms of the debate so that other equally unacceptable time limits have been opposed as compromises, and that their own restrictive amendments to the Bill—on foetal abnormalities, under-18 rape and incest—can be posed as concessions. I recall the way that the under-18 rape amendment, which is now in the Bill, was moved. I am sure that my hon. Friends who were on the Committee will recall that it was moved as a concession. I think that it was appalling to divide young women in that way by introducing an arbitrary period of 18 weeks.

Ms. Short: My hon. Friend has said that all members of the Committee were convinced that neither doctors nor women were abusing the 1967 legislation. I put it to her that some doctors are guilty of abuse. I understand that 20 per cent. of women who have abortions after 28 weeks come forward before 12 weeks. Delay is a major cause of late abortion. It is an abuse of the existing legislation and it should be rectified, but the Bill does not seek to do that.

Ms. Richardson: My hon. Friend is right but she is referring to a different form of abuse from the one that I was addressing. It was argued by Conservative Members that doctors were abusing the Act wholesale by performing abortions when they should not. We continue to deny that. As my hon. Friend has said, there are doctors who, for various reasons, deny a woman an abortion when she is entitled to have one. Some refuse even to pass her on to a doctor who will give her proper advice.
In speaking to the 26-week amendment I want to dispel the belief that some hon. Members may have that it represents a compromise or a concession. Any legal time limit is, in practice, taken by doctors to be a minimum of two weeks less due to difficulties in estimating gestational age and fears of prosecution that might result from an incorrect estimate. My hon. Friend will recall that there was a short debate in Committee on the difficulties in estimating gestational age. Our arguments were rejected. I recall what was said by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) in rejecting the amendment. She claimed that it would bring the time limit to 20 weeks rather than to leave it at 18, which is what she wanted. That was further confirmation that she wants very early abortions at the end of 17 weeks.
Doctors' fear of prosecution can only have been grossly increased by the way in which the campaign has been waged both inside and outside the House. We are discussing time limits of 15 weeks, 18 weeks, 20 weeks, 22

weeks and 24 weeks. This is how time limits of 17 weeks, 20 weeks, 24 weeks and 26 weeks are being put into practice. if we remove two weeks from all the numbers of weeks, the result is that we are discussing 15 weeks, 18 weeks, 20 weeks, 22 weeks and 24 weeks. We must keep that in the forefront of our minds.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Lady has referred to fears of prosecution. Does she agree that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), the promoter of the Bill, has made it clear that in his view his campaign has already led to a substantial reduction in the number of women presenting themselves for abortion? Surely this is the appropriate way in which to proceed. By voluntary activity, persuasion and example, rather than an extension of the criminal law, we shall deal more satisfactorily with a sensitive and intimate subject.

Ms. Richardson: Yes. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We feel that there are many other ways of reducing the rate of abortions at a high week level than the way that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has chosen.
I do not wish to digress, but two of my hon. Friends and I tabled an amendment to introduce self-referral for woman up to the 12th week of pregnancy—that is what happens on the continent. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Abortion on demand?"] It is not abortion on demand. A doctor must be present when an abortion is carried out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is riot suggesting that women should do it themselves. In effect, if the doctor agrees, it is abortion on request. In most European countries that is what happens. A woman may have an abortion up to the 12th week. That has resulted in reducing the rate of abortion because women find it easier to obtain one, and the Health Service provision there makes this possible.
Whatever the amendments may say, effectively we are talking about time limits that are two weeks below those listed. That point has been made strongly by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which has written to all Members of the House and is acknowledged—even by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill—to be an organisation of integrity. The BPAS states that it will ban abortions under the provisions of the 1967 Act at 15 weeks if the time limits remains at
the beginning of the 18th week of pregnancy,
as suggested in the Bill.
It goes on to say that to ensure that they do not break the law they will work to 20 weeks for a 22-week limit and 22 weeks for a 24-week limit. This would mean that 17,000 women, using 1986 figures, will be denied an abortion and will be forced to continue with a pregnancy which could previously have been carried out legally and safely. That is what the BPAS has been forced to do. It is important at this stage to dispel the myth that has been created that late back-street abortions were not and therefore will not now be a problem.
We must remember that it took some years before women, general practitioners and consultants learnt fully about the abortion rights that came into force in 1968. At that time no funds were allocated to the NHS to set up an abortion service.
If we consider the years from 1968 we find that deaths continued not only from illegal abortions, but from illegal-late abortions. From 1970 to 1972, 38 women died from illegal abortions: three at 20 weeks; two at 26 weeks; one at 27 weeks——

Mr. Michael Shersby: Will the hon. Lady explain how many of those women were foreign women coming to this country for late abortions?

Ms. Richardson: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot tell him because I am not sure that the DHSS figures that we have go back that far. The figures that I am quoting can be substantiated by the DHSS and I shall give him the evidence in writing with great pleasure if he wishes to see it. I am not lying.
Between 1973 and 1975, of the 10 women who died three were 16 weeks pregnant and one was 22 weeks pregnant. Between 1976 and 1978—as late as that—four women died. One died from a self-induced abortion at 18 weeks and one at 20 weeks. Between 1979 and 1981 only one woman died of an illegal abortion and two of unspecified abortions. The illegal abortion had been carried out at 27 weeks.
Those tragic deaths included young women, single women, women with other children and women with no children. We really cannot turn our backs on that evidence. Despite the amendment that was carried in Committee by the Bill's sponsors, the exemption on the detection of foetal disability is a serious point and will remain so with time limits higher than the 17th week.
All hon. Members will have received a letter from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Although the royal colleges claim that they would settle for 24 weeks as an upper time limit, they point to the deficiencies in the Bill, apart from the time limits. Even with the amendment that was agreed in Committee tabled by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), which is alleged to cover exceptions for foetal abnormality, the royal colleges did not believe that the Bill would cover all the cases.

Mr. Thurnham: Is the hon. Lady referring to a letter that I received on 26 April from Professor Beard, the chairman of the joint committee on foetal viability and clinical practice at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, in which he said:
We consider that the present Abortion Act of 1967 functions well, and that if the proposed Abortion (Amendment) Bill became law it would not be in the best interests of women in this country."?

Ms. Richardson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The royal colleges and other organisations have made it clear that, whatever upper time limit is agreed by Parliament, it will not make the Bill acceptable. All hon. Members who are minded otherwise should reflect on that.
As I have said, a 24-week limit would, in effect, be 22 weeks. That will still cause serious problems for ultra sound screening and amniocentesis tests which are the major tests for detecting physical and mental disability.
As we have heard, the amniocentesis test is not available until 16 weeks, and the results take up to four weeks to obtain. In some cases, the tests have to be repeated. A friend of mine had an amniocentesis test at 16 weeks. She waited three weeks and then had to have another before it could be confirmed that she was carrying an abnormal foetus. She eventually had an abortion at 22 weeks.
Having had an amniocentesis test, a woman would have reached 20 weeks before the results of the first test were known. Where a second test is required, the 24-week time limit would provide the necessary leeway for an abortion

to be carried out under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967. No consideration can be taken into account other than the severity of the detected foetal abnormality. No consideration can be taken of the woman's circumstances, age or economic and social conditions.
I ask the House to pause for a moment. If we pass the Bill, we must bear in mind the anguish and anxiety that we will inflict on many women who would at least like to think that they had some kind of choice if they found themselves in those difficult circumstances. I admit that we discussed that point at length in Committee. However, we must take into account the mental stress that poverty and poor housing can cause to women.
1 pm
Today is Friday. When all this is over in the House of Commons, I shall be going to my surgery—in common, no doubt, with many of my hon. Friends. I know before I get there that at least a dozen, perhaps 20, housing cases will be awaiting me. People—maninly women—who bear the responsibility of the family, come along and say, "I am in a terrible state. I have three children." I am not talking about women asking for abortions. I am talking about the strain from which they suffer. Such women, with two or three children, may be living on the 10th floor of a block with the lift always out of order. I can imagine many such women, if they become pregnant again, thinking, "My gosh, I really cannot go through with this"—and who could blame them? Yet those hon. Members who are sponsoring the Bill and who intend to see it through would toss those people on one side. I think that that is cruel.

Mr. Shersby: What the hon. Lady is now saying goes to the heart of the debate. As I understand it, she is arguing that if a woman is under stress, in the difficult circumstances that she describes—and I agree that all hon. Members come into contact with women in that condition—she should then be able to obtain an abortion for social reasons, because of the stress on her family, because her home is overcrowded or for some similar reason.
Surely this is what the real argument is about. A substantial number of people feel that it is not legitimate for a woman to ask for an abortion for those social reasons.

Ms. Short: She should make her own decision.

Mr. Shersby: This the crux. Will the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) amplify that point? Will she clarify why an abortion should be allowed simply on grounds of stress or overcrowding?

Ms. Richardson: I thought that I had done so. I entirely accept that such a woman could probably obtain an abortion up to the end of the 17th week under the Bill, but we are thinking beyond that point. As has been said repeatedly in the Chamber, in Committee and elsewhere, it is not always possible to get the two doctors—or, in this case, doctor and consultant gynaecologist—before the end of the 17th week, and we are very worried. Although that may not involve a large number of women, many will feel threatened, because the Act—if we are unfortunate enough to see it become one—will be hanging over them, and they will not know what to do. I believe that the House has a duty to take into account the so-called social reasons—although in most people's terminology "social" means something more pleasant.

Mr. Alton: Not once has the hon. Lady made any mention—I hope that she will—of what happens to the child involved in a late abortion: the child that is dismembered in the course of a dilatation and evacuation operation; the child that is placed in a black sack and incinerated, as in the case of the Carlisle baby, at 21 weeks' gestation after struggling for life for three hours. Not once has she mentioned the child.

Ms. Richardson: It is necessary to weigh these matters up.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Is my hon. Friend aware that the doctor who refused to treat the foetus in the Carlisle case was a member of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child? Is she aware that when the health authority looked into the matter, it decided that the doctor had made the right decision? Is she aware that Life decided to call in the police, which meant that the woman involved had to be told what had happened and had to be interviewed by the police for three hours? Is she aware that the police finally decided that there was no case to answer? Is she aware that pressure has been exerted on the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for an inquest to be held, which means that the mother will have to go and register the death of the child and will probably have to testify at the inquest?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are getting rather wide of the matter before the House.

Ms. Richardson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. it happened in his constituency. He has taken a close and concerned interest in the matter.
I shall say something about the Carlisle bably. I could not understand why the matter was not reported at the time. It should have been. If anything went wrong, it should have been dealt with in the proper way at the time. I do not understand why it should have come up so much later. FromTime Out, I understand that the hon. member for Mossley Hill—he will correct me if I am wrong—prompted the coroner to have an inquest. That seems to be rather strange. Why did the hon. Member for Mossley Hill do it recently? Why did he not do it at the time?

Mr. Alton: rose——

Ms. Richardson: If I may continue before the hon. Gentleman intervenes.
Time Out informed me that it has spoken to the coroner and that the coroner, who was drawn in at that late stage, relatively recently, on looking at the files, decided that perhaps there should have been a registration of death. It was too late to do anything about the body of the child, because he had to look at the files. Apparently, the coroner then wrote to the Home Secretary to inform him of that. As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill had raised the matter with him, out of courtesy the coroner also wrote to the hon. Gentleman. I have it written in shorthand, as it was given to me byTime Out. The coroner said:
I was very startled when it suddenly appeared in the press. I only wrote to tell Mr. Alton as a matter of courtesy. Maybe I was very naive, but it just didn't cross my mind that he would announce it to the press.
Interesting, is it not?

Mr. Alton: It is a public letter. It does not state in any way that it is confidential. It states:
I received the police file on 21st April, and having studied it carefully I came to the conclusion that an Inquest would be

in the public interest. I have posted a detailed report to the Home Office today, so that the Secretary of State may decide whether he considers an Inquest desirable.
The letter is signed by Ian Morton, coroner for north-east Cumbria. His reply is rather more reliable than the shorthand notes fromTime Out.

Ms. Richardson: That does not cross what I have said.

Mr. Martlew: I talked to the coroner this morning. He is dismayed at the use that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill has made of the information.

Ms. Richardson: Again, there is confirmation of the whole matter.
I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and other hon. Members have made. What about the stress to the mother? I wonder whether the hon. Member for Mossley Hill considered, belatedly, bringing that to the attention of the coroner. I wonder whether he sat down and thought, "Well, now, we are going to have to get this woman to court." That is appalling. That woman had an abortion. As everybody says, abortions are not lightly undertaken. Often—not always, but often—they leave emotional scars. Now, because the coroner says that there should have been an inquest, that poor woman will have to go through the whole thing again.

Mrs. Gorman: On the matter relating to the baby in pieces, which was raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), we have heard the story time and again. I consulted Dr. Wendy Savage, one of our leading experts. She consulted Mr. Arnie Finks, one of the world's leading experts, and he said that, before an abortion of this kind is undertaken, and even before a caesarian operation is performed, the amount of anaesthetic given to the mother has to be terribly tightly controlled because it affects the foetus. When there is to be an abortion by this method, the mother is given a full anaesthetic and the foetus is entirely anaesthetised and probably dead. The idea of the foetus alive and in pieces is an absolute travesty of the facts. It is a fact that, even in caesarian operations, to protect the foetus from the effects of the aneasthetic, the mother is sometimes not completely anaesthetised.

Ms. Richardson: The hon. Lady—whom I called my hon. Friend for the purposes of debate in Committee, but who is now once again the hon. Lady—has put the matter in perspective. It is a matter of balance. The mother's wishes are paramount. She must make the decision in consultation with her husband or the partner with whom she lives, who is the father of the child. We want such a decision to be taken in those circumstances.

Mr. Tredinnick: I should point out that the Channel 4 programme "Women in View" considered the Carlisle incident and the surrounding publicity. It found that a local journalist, running his own freelance agency, had made £5,000 from the story., which he obtained from the curate, whom I shall not name, at St. Bride's, Carlisle, who happened to be a member of SPUC.

Ms. Richardson: The further we go into this matter, the murkier it becomes.

Ms. Short: We must put this matter right on the record because the House and the Committee were misled about the nature of the disability affecting the foetus in that case.


It was suggested that it was a minor skin complaint, but it was a serious condition that can lead to suffering, rupture of the skin and internal organs and to death. The woman was told that her foetus was subject to those conditions, not to a minor skin complaint. The record should not be distorted as it has been.

Ms. Richardson: That is right and we shall see what develops from that. The publicity surrounding that event appears to have been geared beautifully—perhaps "specifically" would be a more appropriate word to use—towards gaining publicity for the Bill. I deplore such tactics.

Mr. Martlew: The abortion in question took place in July 1987 and was brought to the fore on Second Reading.

Ms. Richardson: I am glad that my hon. Friend has put that on the record because I had forgotten that point. He drew the original article to my attention and I was amazed to find that the incident took place so long ago.

Mr. Alton: That is an important point. That information became public knowledge, not as a result of action taken by SPUC, Life or myself, but because the doctor and the nurses involved found the procedures so repugnant that they swore affidavits to that effect and asked for an investigation. The coroner has now said that there should be an inquest, because that would be in the public interest, and that should surely validate their action.

Ms. Richardson: I do not know sufficient——

Mr. Martlew: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should allow the hon. Lady to deal with one intervention at a time.

Ms. Richardson: As my hon. Friend is the Member for Carlisle and has taken such a close interest in the matter, I am sure that he would be able to elucidate that point.

Mr. Martlew: The matter became public knowledge originally through an article in theCatholic Herald. It was then taken up by theSunday People, which gave a distorted view. An even more distorted view was given by theSunday Mirror, which supposedly carried out an interview with the mother—which never in fact took place—in which she supposedly said that her child would be born a freak. No reporter ever talked to that lady and that comment was never made to that lady by the gynaecologist concerned.

Ms. Richardson: When we see theOfficial Report of the debate we can piece together the true facts of the Carlisle case in a way that we could not previously do. I am glad that some of the details of it are now on the record.
1.15 pm.
There have been a number of interventions during my speech, but I shall now conclude my remarks as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. The Bill is unacceptable, irrespective of the time limits. It does not take into account the social reasons that we have been discussing. Some problems are known only to those who

are affected, and they should have the benefit of choice, albeit a limited choice under the 1967 Act. That is why that Act should be left intact.
A time limit of anything less than 26 weeks—which, in effect, is 24 weeks—would write off the interests of real, living women and their children in favour of the interests of an unviable foetus. We must make a decision today, and I hope that it will be the right one. From what the sponsors of the Bill said in Committee, I understand that they intend further attacks on the 1967 Act. That has also been made plain this morning. People will be forced to the defensive. I put down a marker that I will not be forced to the defensive—I shall feel forced to the offensive.
We must study the good practices of those European countries that have self-referral. We must ensure that the 1967 Act is responsive to need in every possible way, without going beyond the bounds of legality. We must ensure that the NHS responds adequately in every part of Britain. For example, it responds in the north but not in the west midlands. There must be decent, proper sex education at school and a properly funded family planning service. Funds should be made available for research into contraception so that women do not take the pill and then find, as some do, that it does not suit them, or that being fitted with an inter-uterine device does not do the trick. All those measures would make women safer. There is a large failure rate in contraception so it is no use people thinking that women are simply being careless. We must ensure genuine choice for women.
Hon. Members who want to end abortion will achieve only a return to back-street abortion. Those of us who support the 1967 Act want improvements so that there are safe and legal abortions, with back-up facilities, that allow women to live their lives with dignity and independence.

Sir Bernard Braine: The amendments are all aimed at the very heart of the Bill. I would prefer the Bill to limit abortions to the 18th week of pregnancy, but I made plain on Second Reading the fact that I was ready to join the search for a formula that would safeguard the position of the woman who might be bearing a child suffering from severe abnormality, and on whom tests to establish the facts had not been completed by the 18th week of her pregnancy.
That aspect was considered in detail in Committee and I moved an amendment that now forms part of the Bill. That was a genuine attempt by my hon. Friends and myself to keep faith with the House. A number of reservations have been aired, even by supporters of the Bill and it is necessary to keep faith with the House. The Bill that we now seek to amend further is not the Bill to which the House gave a substantial majority on Second Reading.
The amendments now being discussed seek to raise the limit for all abortions from the 18th week of pregnancy. We must be clear about what will be the effects of that on—if I may use the term for the first time today—the right to life of the unborn. The Bill in its present form does not change the grounds for abortion under the 1967 Act. The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was well intentioned, but the case he had in mind was irrelevant, because in all probability it would have been dealt with before the 18th week of pregnancy—very much earlier, probably.
The Bill concerns itself with the scandal of abortions for social reasons or for convenience. I remind the House that abortions under the social cause constitute the vast


majority of abortions performed after 18 weeks. No less than 92 per cent. of all late abortions are carried out on foetuses, which, if they were permitted to be born, would be perfectly normal and healthy. Many of us are appalled that under the 1967 Act, 2·6 million foetuses had been destroyed by 1986. If they had been allowed to be born, most of them would have grown into healthy and normal children. Slaughter on that scale continues, and the purpose of the Bill—

Mr. David Evennett: rose—'—

Sir Bernard Braine: I shall not give way, because a number of other hon. Members wish to speak, and owing to what has gone before, there is little time. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand.
The Bill deals with only a small proportion of abortions performed after 18 weeks, when the baby in the womb is perfectly formed. It is responsive to light and to sound, and it recognises its mother's voice. It differs in no material respect from what it will be 10 weeks later when, under the law, it is protected against the crime of destruction.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: rose——

Sir Bernard Braine: I have already indicated that I shall not give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way".] No, I must stick by my word. I did not give way to my hon. Friend, and I have a number of other points to make. I want to be brief, to give others an opportunity to speak.
Amendment No. 2 is wholly unacceptable to the Bill's supporters, and so is the amendment calling for a limit of 24 weeks. Both ignore the fact that at those gestational ages, a pre-term baby can survive. A study undertaken at Bristol maternity hospital in 1984 found that 72 per cent. of live-born infants of 22 to 27 weeks' gestation survived. That finding was published in a report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists entitled "Pre-term Labour and its Consequences". Two years earlier, in 1982, the survival rate for the same group was 43 per cent. and in 1981 it was only 29 per cent. Legislation should reflect and not ignore advances in medical science and practice. We should not be confused by the word "viability", which is not an objective pointer in terms of the right to life. It is the level at which medical technology can sustain the life of a prematurely born baby rather than the point below which the baby is not a human being with a right to life and above which he or she should be protected by law.
I should have liked to say a great deal more, but I am anxious that the Bill should make progress.[Interruption.]If the House will not listen I shall develop the case that I intended to develop. The subject of my remarks has scarcely been mentioned today. It is the right to life of the unborn. On Second Reading, the House voted in favour of 18 weeks. The sponsors believe that we have the support of the majority in the country and we should prefer the Bill to remain as amended in Committee to meet the genuine concern of the House.
The amendments provide us with a choice and we shall shortly be exercising that choice. In doing so, we should remember that the unborn child marked down for abortion has no choice. It is denied the right to be born—the right to a life before death. In those circumstances, only we can choose life and I trust that the majority of us will do so.

Mr. Steel: In considering the variety of amendments before us, it is right to pay some attention to the learned bodies that have given a great deal of thought to this issue. With the exception of one or two hon. Members with qualifications in this area, most of us are lay men and women and we are dealing with a very complicated question. I remind the House, therefore, that a number of detailed inquiries have been conducted into the whole subject of viability and we should take their conclusions into account.
The first was the distinguished committee of inquiry under Mrs. Justice Lane set up by the Government some years ago in response to continued criticism of the working of the Abortion Act 1967. On this narrow issue, that committee recommended that abortion should not be carried out beyond the 24th week of pregnancy. That was several years ago and the Government made various administrative changes in the light of that recommendation—no doubt the Minister will amplify this—which have meant that since that time very few abortions have been carried out beyond the 24-week limit. Nevertheless, the law still stands as it as created—not in 1967, but in 1929 by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.
I believe that it is the will of the House, certainly by a clear majority, that the law should reflect the changes in medical practice that have taken place since then. I believe that if we could only secure expression for it there is probably a majority in the House in favour of a 24-week limit.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the Gallup poll conducted in January among 746 gynaecologists. Apart from abortion for foetal abnormality and threat to the life of the mother, they were asked what they thought should be the upper limit for legal abortions. Ninety-eight per cent. of the gynaecologists asked supported 24 weeks or below, which shows that there is no support among the medical profession—or, I suspect, in the House—for this amendment. Is it not time that we accepted our responsibility to the general public and debated the important amendments that the public want us to deal with?

Mr. Steel: I sympathise with the hon. Member. I am addressing my remarks to amendment No. 7, which deals with 24 weeks.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I believe it to be the will of the House that there be a Division, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think it is much too early. I think the House would prefer to hear the Minister and the promoter of the Bill, together with those who oppose the amendments.

Mr. Steel: I was outlining to the House what I believed was the first substantial committee of inquiry into the issue, which recommended to Parliament and to Government that there should be a limit of 24 weeks. That committee of inquiry took place some years ago. The most recent study was conducted not by this House, but by a Select Committee of another place. Only a few weeks ago


that Committee, having deliberated on a Bill to amend the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, concluded that the limit should be 24 weeks.
The third study of this matter was by a committee that included representatives of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Paediatric Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association and the Department of Health and Social Security. That very important committee published a report in August 1985 on foetal viability and clinical practice. Its recommendation was clear. It said that the gestational age after which a foetus is considered viable should be changed from the present limit of 28 weeks to 24 weeks of gestation.
The committee continued:
a strong argument which persuaded the Committee against recommending a gestational age that is set too low, is the certainty that fear ignorance and administrative delays will continue to be a major reason for late attendance for termination of pregnancy. These late attenders are usually the women in greatest need of help—the very young and socially deprived.
That was not a committee of social workers. It was a highly expert medical committee that recommended to Parliament what should be the state of the law. We would be wise to consider its opinions.
Just before the Bill's Second Reading, the viability committee of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists circulated a statement reiterating the royal college's view that there should be a 24-week limit. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) has left his seat, because this is an important argument that is contrary to his. The viability committee said:
Twenty-four weeks gestation marks a … boundary below which the lungs are not expected to function. A reduction to 18 weeks"—
or for that matter any other limit—
has no scientific basis and would discriminate against women who may be most in need.
On future medical advance, the committee said:
Further medical expertise will increase survival rates rather than lower the age at which survival is possible.
For those reasons the House would be wise to accept an amendment to the 1967 legislation, creating a bar at 24 weeks of pregnancy. Remembering the point made by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) that the medical profession always operates within a two-week limit of safety, a legal statement that abortion may not take place beyond the 24th week will ensure that it will not happen after the 22nd week.
I say bluntly to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and to other hon. Members who support the Bill that, if they were honest, they would say that there is no ethical difference between an abortion at 10 weeks, 17 weeks or 24 weeks. From their standpoint, the alternatives are all equally wrong. Those of us who do not share that view have the responsibility of determining what the boundary of the criminal law should be.
I do not believe that any of the other amendments have any logical argument behind them. The 24-week amendment has the validity of scientific opinion and, therefore, of public opinion behind it. By passing it into legislation we should be keeping open the option created in

1967 for women and their medical advisers to secure safe and legal termination of pregnancy as the lesser of two evils in any given situation in which they decide to do that. That is what the House would be wise to vote for.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: By coming back to the House with the amendments that we made in Committee we have kept faith. We promised particularly to take on board the issue of handicap, and by doing that and ensuring that the House—if it is allowed to get to that stage—has a choice of weeks, we have kept complete faith.
One thing has not been mentioned during the debate, yet it is the most fundamental of all. What we are deciding today is awesome. It is what is human life? When is a human being not a human being? How can we, in a supposedly civilised society, have a law that allows the treatment of two babies of identical age to vary to such an extent that the one is cherished and its life fought for and the other is disposed of as having no value? I ask only that when we vote for 20, 22 or any other number of weeks, we remember that, if we would not do to a baby in an incubator what we would to a baby in the course of an abortion, we should vote to outlaw these abortions

Mr. Alton: I commend to the House the best possible option which, from the point of view of the promoter and sponsors of the Bill, would be that of 20 weeks. We commend it because it will save lives. Twenty-four weeks is a no-change option, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and others support it.
I hope that the House will cease to hide behind euphemisms such as "products of conception", zygote, embryo and foetus, which itself means little one. But we do not recognise that little one's right to life, and that is what the Bill seeks to do. It is extraordinary that foetal brain material can be used to give another life. What does that say about the unborn child? What do we allow to happen to the unborn child? The most dangerous place for it is inside the womb. Dilation and evacuation require the crushing of the baby's skull, the breaking of its spine and its removal piece by piece, and it is a barbaric, degrading and corrupting practice to allow in our country. Prostaglandins require the baby to be brought on through a labour that can go on for hours, and it can be left writhing in agony as a result. No anaesthetics are used in these cases. This time limit was set 59 years ago. Surely, as a matter of public policy, we should be reviewing it.
No other country in western Europe allows abortions as late as we do. The average EEC time limit is 12 to 14 weeks. In Sweden, which is outside the European Community, it is 18 weeks. That is why the Bill is reasonable and why hon. Members should vote for the best possible option that is available today—the 20-week option.

Mr. Newton: On Second Reading, I drew attention to the fact that abortion was an issue on which there are deeply held and wholly conflicting views, and I am sure that the whole House agrees with that. I also said then and I repeat now that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) was entitled to be judged on the proposals before the House rather than on any views that he might hold about what, from his perspective, an ideal position would be. I set out at some length some of the facts about tests and about other matters which I hoped would help the House to reach a conclusion. In view of the pressure of


time on the House and what I perceive to be a general desire to reach a conclusion on these matters in the public interest, I shall keep my speech brief. I hope that I carry the whole House with me on that.
In the spirit in which I approached the Second Reading debate during which I drew attention to some of the problems, it is right to recognise that the amendments to the Bill in Committee which changed its form before it returned to the House, are of some significance. They go some way to seek to meet the concerns about disability and the birth of disabled children. It is for the House to judge how far they go to meet those concerns. We should at least recognise the importance of the changes that have been made, even if there are those who feel that they do not provide the basis for consensus on the I 8-week time limit which remains in the Bill.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give the Government's view on the wording of clause 1(2)(b) which says:
if the child were horn it would suffer from severe physical or mental disability (the nature of the disability to be identified in the certificate)"?
Will the Minister give the Government's view without further defining the physical or mental disability and the dangers of uneven practice developing in the countries of Britain? What guidance can the Department give on the satisfactory or otherwise nature of that wording?

Mr. Newton: I shall cover that point briefly in a moment. I shall deliver my speech in the order that seems sensible in the interests of consistency and brevity.
I should like to deal with the inter-relationship of the matters that we are dealing with now and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. I think that the House understands that in the Abortion Act 1967 there is no time limit whatever on abortion. It is sometimes presumed that such a time limit is set by the operation of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. It is important that that should be understood, but I do not propose to reiterate the rather complex lines of argument underlying the point.
As Minister for Health I owe the House such assessment as is available from the advice available to me about the impact of the Bill on the current arrangements for abortion that are laid down in the 1967 Act. This picks up the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). It is indisputable—indeed, it is the purpose—that there would be some reduction in the number of abortions that could be carried out legally. The Department estimates that at least 7,630 fewer abortions would have been carried out in England and Wales in 1986 if the Bill as it stands had been in force. About half the women affected would have been non-residents and the remaining abortions—for very young women or those in much later life which might go ahead at present in appropriate circumstances—would have been prohibited. As I said on Second Reading, out of a total of 8,276 abortions in England and Wales in 1986 at a gestational age of 18 weeks or over, more than one third were to women under 20 and about 3 per cent. were to women aged 40 and over.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon asked about wording in the Bill. It is undeniably a matter of some uncertainty how doctors and others would interpret the Bill. It is possible that the exemption for foetal handicap, which is more tightly drawn than the present ground 4, could mean that fewer abortions would be carried out in that category. The difficulty and part of the uncertainty arises from the

fact that the medical technology involved is not sufficiently refined to make it possible to foretell with certainty the degree of disability that a child would have after birth. Against that background, I cannot give the House a clear-cut or definite statement about the precise consequences of the change. It would be irresponsible of me to pretend that I could do that and I shall not seek to do so.

Ms. Primarolo: Will the Minister give way.?

Mr. Newton: No, because I feel that I owe the House a short speech. As Minister for Health and especially in view of the pressure of time, there is nothing else that I can properly say.

Ms. Primarolo: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Newton: I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would let me continue. I am sure that the general mood of the House is that we should proceed with the debate.

Ms. Primarolo: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Newton: Will the hon. Lady let me proceed?
At the end of all the arguments, I have to accept, as the House has to accept, that there is no single conclusive factual, technical or legal point which can make up the mind of the House as a whole or of any of us as individual Members.

Mr. Steel: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Newton: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman because the 1967 Act was his and it would be a proper courtesy for me to do so.

Mr. Steel: I am grateful to the Minister. I am seeking information from him, and do not seek to alter his opinions. Will he confirm that the parliamentary answers that he gave on 8 December about the time limits in other countries are correct in that in France the limit is 24 weeks, in Italy 23, in the Netherlands 24 and that the figures given by the promoter of the Bill are for the quite different limit for abortion on request in their law and are not the final limits for abortion?

Mr. Newton: I can confirm that any answers that I have given in Hansard are correct on the basis of the best information available to me. All those points, while they appear to be facts, conceal a wealth of potential argument about the exact grounds on which abortions are permitted in different countries at different periods of time.
At the end of my Second Reading speech I emphasised, and I emphasise again, that in purely personal terms, not as a Minister or as a member of the Government, I was prepared to vote for some time limit, but I did not feel able to vote for the Bill as it then stood. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has gone a long way to meet some of those concerns, and I as an individual will take that into account. However, the questions I have to ask myself as a Member of Parliament, not as a Minister—I speak now as a Member of Parliament—are broad ones. For example, do we have a balance that commands the kind of consensus support in this matter that we would like?
Secondly, if the Bill were passed in its present form, with the 18-week limit and even with the changes, would it be likely to command a balance that would lead to consensus? If the House believes, as I do, that the answer


to both those questions is no, it would be right to vote for one of the compromise solutions. I shall not tell the House what I think it should vote for; it would be wrong for me to do so. But it is in that spirit that I shall decide which of the amendments to vote for.

Ms. Ruddock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for your assistance in this matter, as I am a new Member. The Minister referred to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and I would like to ask him to clarify that reference and to provide the House with information.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Ms. Short: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important that the House ceases to play political games and concentrates on what is being proposed here today. We know that there is probably a majority in the House for the recommendation of the BMA that the abortion limit should come down to 24 weeks. I would support that, if we could also have exceptions for the hard cases about which we all know—late detection of foetal abnormality or the menopausal woman or young girl who does not know that she is pregnant until very late. What is on offer is enormously different. I believe—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot even hear myself speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was sitting at my hon. Friend's side and it was difficult to hear her. There is a deliberate ploy on the part of Conservative Members to intimidate or participate in conversations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was about to say. I must listen to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), and it is even more difficult to hear what she is saying at this end of the Chamber than from the area in which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is sitting.

Ms. Short: Most of the medical bodies have recommended—this has been accepted by a majority in this place—a time limit of 24 weeks. I would find that limit completely acceptable if there were an exception for hard cases.
The House must make an important choice that will affect the lives of many women and families. Present practice is, in effect, a 24-week limit. The recommendation of the DHSS is that there should be no abortion post-24 weeks except in hard cases. Only 29 abortions took place post-24 weeks in 1986 the last complete year for which figures are available to us. For the three quarters of the next year there were 19 such abortions. The House wants a 24-week limit with exceptions. The Select Committee of another place recommended a 24-week limit with exceptions. We have in practice a 24-week limit with

exceptions. I beg the House seriously to note that. What is on offer is not the 24-week reform that the majority of hon. Members have said in various surveys, for example, that they want. Instead, we have a serious restriction that is based on no rational scientific or technical evidence. It has been put before us by those who are completely opposed to all abortion. I respect them for taking that view, but I cannot respect them for not having the guts to put that proposition before the House. They will not do that because they know that that proposition would not be carried. Instead, they have chosen to introduce a duplicitous Bill. They pretend that they are trying to prevent late abortion, but that is not their true position.
I should like to see a series of actions taken to prevent late abortion. That would find great favour on the Opposition Benches.

Mrs. Wise: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be much better if those who have handicapped children received more support? The House could provide more support. Is my hon. Friend aware that 200 of those who voted for the Bill's Second Reading had, 10 days earlier, voted against an attendance allowance for severely disabled children? Further, is she aware that five of the 12 sponsors of the Bill voted against an attendance allowance for severely disabled children?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us not have a re-run of a social security debate.

Ms. Short: My hon. Friend makes her own point. Half the people of our world go hungry nearly every day, yet that world produces twice as much food as the peoples of the world need. When we consider the stance that is taken by Conservative Members on international economic change that could produce a better life for the poor, I cannot accept that they are seriously committed to the beauty and preservation of human life. They are putting another agenda before us.
Those who are critical of the Bill want to do everything possible to prevent late abortion. It is gravely wrong—the Minister should take this point much more seriously than he does—that 20 per cent. of abortions that take place after 20 weeks involve women who referred themselves before 12 weeks. Delays are built into our legislation and the way in which the NHS behaves, and these result in late abortions. We could avoid that. We could remove a whole series of late abortions.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does the hon. Lady agree that there is no need for self-referral to encourage earlier abortions? I am sure that we are united in our desire to cut out the trauma of a late abortion, which is particularly horrible for the doctors, the gynaecologists, and the mother as well as for her immediate family. At a later stage, we should consider providing for the signature of one doctor for an abortion up to 12 weeks. Surely that would overcome people's natural fear about self-referral—heir fear about a woman's right to demand from a doctor an abortion whenever she wants. Such self-referral may be abused by women who use abortion as a form of contraception— particularly unpleasant way of using abortion. If we agree to a time limit of 24 weeks today—more than 160 hon. Members are in favour of that—oes she agree that an


amendment at a later stage to require the signature of one doctor would overcome many of the problems of late abortion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief and relevant.

Ms. Short: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. If the House wants to make one change in our legislation that would prevent late abortion, and if the sponsors of the Bill are as distressed about late abortion as they claim, we should learn from our European partners.

Sir Bernard Braine: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that there are many strands of opinion still wishing expression.

Ms. Short: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it distressing that hon. Members who claim to be deeply concerned about this matter will not listen to serious proposals that would achieve the objectives of which they claim to be in favour.
Hon. Members claim to be in favour of preventing late abortion. It is absolutely proven by medical evidence and by experience in other European countries that, if we allow self-referral—let us be clear that that means self-referral to one doctor and not women deciding for themselves without medical advice—we would prevent an enormous number of late abortions. We would prevent the distress that that means for doctors, nurses, the other medical staff and the woman.

Ms. Primarolo: I accept the distress that is felt by the medical profession, but that feeling is also shared by the woman, and she appears to have been forgotten by the promoters of the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an impossible task to prove, beyond doubt, the date of gestation? If the Bill goes through, it could result in criminal prosecutions against practitioners and women seeking abortions. In that way, the Bill is based on sand and it is opening the way to further misery.

Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Because of the ulterior motives that lie behind the Bill, one of the terrible things about it is that it is not well constructed. The provisions contained in the previous legislation relating to doctors acting in good faith——

Mr. Alton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the House does not move to a closure within the next two minutes, it will be denied the opportunity to vote on the amendments. Therefore, I beg to move, That the Question be now put—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has just heard the ruling from the Chair. It was given within minutes of his rising.

Mr. Alton: Further to that point of order. Therefore, I beg to move again, That the Question be now put—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I see no reason to vary the ruling that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Alton: rose——

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Alton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to detain the House. When Mr. Speaker was in the Chair this morning, he said that he would take into account the time that was wasted on petitions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wasted?"] and wasted on any number of other devices.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist in challenging my ruling. It is a matter for the occupant of the Chair and I have ruled.

2 pm

Ms. Short: I am trying to make a number of enormously serious points which have not been put before during the debate and I am being interrupted constantly. Therefore, we cannot have a rational debate about these very serious matters. That is deeply regrettable.
I was replying to an intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) about the position in which medical practitioners would be placed by the Bill. Under the provisions in previous legislation, if practitioners made a judgment in good faith, that was all that was required of them. That will be removed and doctors in hospitals throughout the country, who face all the difficulties where women request abortions, will face criminal prosecution in many instances if they do their very best in good faith to interpret the law and give women the rights that they understand the law to provide.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Lady said earlier that she was in favour of 24 weeks as a reasonable and workable compromise. However, she will have heard the Minister say that 24 weeks in law really means 22 weeks in practice. The figures provided by the professionals show that whereas—[Interruption.] I understood that the 24 weeks would be reduced by two weeks. That comment has been made by many people.

Mr. Newton: rose——

Mr. Wigley: I do not believe that the Minister can intervene on an intervention.
Is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) aware that over the 24-weeks limit only 29 abortions were performed in 1986 whereas at the 23-week to 24-week stage, there were as many as 1,065 abortions? To have 24 weeks in practice the House may well vote in a few minutes for 26 weeks which will be interpreted in that way by the professionals.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman's point is crucial. The House wants 24 weeks in practice. In practice we have 24 weeks and there were only 29 exceptions in 1986. The best way for the House to vote for 24 weeks is to vote the Bill down.

Ms. Diane Abbot: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ms. Short: The truth is objectively—[interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not conduct our debates in this fashion. There should be no heckling from the Front Benches below the Gangway.

Ms. Short: I shall be grateful if you will allow me a few more minutes, Mr. Deputy Chairman.
I want to make one or two more points to the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) who keeps asking


about the unborn child's right to life. That is a very important question. There are competing rights. However, I put these points to the right hon. Member for Castle Point and to all those who take a very anti-abortion stance. Those people are absolutely entitled to that right of conscience and to live with it. However, they have no entitlement to impose that view on others who, in conscience, take a different view. Those people have no sublime right to tell others in this country and the majority of public opinion, which takes a different view from theirs, that the law will be changed to force their view on others. That is wrong. The minority should not abuse the law in that way. They should exercise their conscience in their own personal, moral decision-making and through their own religious convictions.

Mrs. Peacock: I listened very carefully to the hon. Lady's last few remarks. Did she not earlier suggest that consultants should not be allowed that same privilege; that they should be required to carry out abortions irrespective of their consciences?

Ms. Short: Absolutely not. All those questions are very important. I would insist on the right of anyone to take a stand on conscience, including anyone in the medical profession who does not want to participate in abortions. However, the minority do not have a right to prevent women and families who make other decisions from having their rights under the law. It is perfectly possible for us to arrange things so that the two sides do not collide. The Minister—I have already put this point to him—should require all National Health Service areas to plan the local provision of abortion facilities. They should then appoint a range of practitioners. Plenty of gynaecological work does not involve abortion. This does not mean that those who are opposed to abortion could not be appointed and promoted. That is not incompatible with the need. We can respect medical practitioners who are opposed to abortion, and extend the rights of the law to all who want to take up those rights.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the more crass and dangerous provisions of this very misconceived Bill is the suggestion that rape and incest, while they might be grounds for termination in women below the age of 18, would not be so in women above that age? Will she address that peculiar anomaly?

Ms. Short: I was coming to that. It is one of the most offensive features of this offensive Bill. How can the sponsors possibly say that a woman under 18 who is raped or sexually abused is more innocent than a woman over 18? Many women who are sexually abused or raped are mentally disturbed by the experience, in some of the most awful and brutal cases. There are known cases, to which I would refer if we had more time, of women being so distressed and upset that they did not report their pregnancy until a stage that would be too late under the Bill.
Every hon. Member was consulted about how rape could be prevented. An article in Woman or Woman's Own was, I believe, sent to all of us. It told the story of a woman in her 50s who told how she was raped in her 20s, and how it still disturbed her life. She had had a child as a

consequence of the rape. She had never loved that child; she never could and never would. That is the most tragic thing that can be imagined.
The woman was telling the truth. That child, now an adult, had never been loved because the conception had been the result of a brutal and horrible rape. The Bill's provisions mean that more children with experience of being unwanted because they remind a woman of a brutal, horrible, unwanted sexual experience would be born. That strikes me as deeply disgusting, and, while I understand why some people hate the idea of abortion, I do not know how anyone could bear to put his name to a proposal to judge between those under 18 and those over 18.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that many women who were raped, whether they were younger or older than 18, would not have time to reflect on whether they could ever love a child born in such circumstances? Yet the Bill requires them to make up their minds before the 18th week of gestation.
Here again is a case of people who have no intention of listening to the arguments trying to bully and threaten their way—[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend has not heard my question, I shall repeat it. Obviously some hon. Members cannot realise that a woman who has been raped, no matter what age she is, will not have time to reflect on whether she will ever be able to love a child born in such circumstances—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady would make more progress if she were allowed to speak. We are debating this matter. I hope that the House realises that.

Mrs. Fyfe: It is no wish of mine to have to repeat again what I asked my hon. Friend, but I shall keep saying it until the House hears the point. It is important to realise that, no matter what the age of a woman, if she has been raped and becomes pregnant as a result she will not have time to consider whether she will ever be able to love a child born in such circumstances. The time limit in the Bill—[Interruption.]

Ms. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. We shall proceed much more rapidly if Conservative Members do not make so much noise that it is impossible to hear. A long time was taken by my hon. Friend to make the same point three or four times, because it was absolutely impossible to hear her. She is absolutely right. Raped women are often deeply disturbed by their experience. They need time to come to terms with it, and they need time to consider whether they are emotionally capable of loving the child born as a result of rape. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill and his supporters do not have the right to intrude on such a deeply difficult decision.
I wish to make two other points.

Mr. Cyril Smith: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 229.

Division No. 288]
[2.10 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Amos, Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arbuthnot, James


Allason, Rupert
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alton, David
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Amess, David
Aspinwall, Jack






Atkins, Robert
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Baldry, Tony
Freeman, Roger


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
French, Douglas


Batiste, Spencer
Fry, Peter


Beggs, Roy
Galloway, George


Beith, A. J.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bell, Stuart
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bendall, Vivian
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Benyon, W.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorst, John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Graham, Thomas


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gregory, Conal


Boswell, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bottomley, Peter
Grocott. Bruce


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bowis, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hanley, Jeremy


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hannam, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hardy, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brazier, Julian
Harris, David


Bright. Graham
Hawkins, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI't's)
Hayes, Jerry


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hayward, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Burns, Simon
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Burt, Alistair
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butcher, John
Hill, James


Butler, Chris
Hinchliffe, David


Butterfill, John
Hind, Kenneth


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Canavan, Dennis
Holt, Richard


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Home Robertson, John


Carrington, Matthew
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cash, William
Howard, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Churchill, Mr
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irving, Charles


Crowther, Stan
Jack, Michael


Cummings, John
Janman, Tim


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Curry, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Day, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Charles


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Dicks, Terry
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Douglas, Dick
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duffy, A. E. P.
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Durant, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lambie, David


Evennett, David
Lamond, James


Fallon, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Favell, Tony
Lang, Ian


Fearn, Ronald
Latham, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Ivan


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Flynn, Paul
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark





Lilley, Peter
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Lord, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Rost, Peter


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McCrea, Rev William
Salmond, Alex


McCrindle, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Macdonald, Calum A.
Shaw, David (Dover)


McFall, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McGrady, Eddie
Sheerman, Barry


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Maclean, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maclennan, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sims, Roger


McNamara, Kevin
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maginnis, Ken
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Major, Rt Hon John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Malins, Humfrey
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Mallon, Seamus
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mans, Keith
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Marlow, Tony
Speller, Tony


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Hon Francis
Stevens, Lewis


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Miller, Hal
Sumberg, David


Mills, Iain
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moss, Malcolm
Thorne, Neil


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thornton, Malcolm


Mudd, David
Tracey, Richard


Murphy, Paul
Trippier, David


Neubert, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


O'Brien, William
Waldegrave, Hon William


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wallace, James


Page, Richard
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Ward, John


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Parry, Robert
Watts, John


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Whitney, Ray


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wilshire, David


Pawsey, James
Wilson, Brian


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Pendry, Tom
Winterton, Nicholas


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Woodcock, Mike


Porter, David (Waveney)
Worthington, Tony


Portillo, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Redwood, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Reid, Dr John



Renton, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Mr. Nicholas Bennett and Miss Ann Widdecombe.


Robertson, George



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Armstrong, Hilary


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Ashdown, Paddy


Adley, Robert
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Allen, Graham
Ashton, Joe


Anderson, Donald
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)






Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Barron, Kevin
Grist, Ian


Battle, John
Harman, Ms Harriet


Beckett, Margaret
Haselhurst, Alan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Haynes, Frank


Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn &amp; R'dish)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bermingham, Gerald
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Henderson, Doug


Blair, Tony
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Blunkett, David
Holland, Stuart


Boateng, Paul
Hood, Jimmy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Boyes, Roland
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bradley, Keith
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hoyle, Doug


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Illsley, Eric


Buchan, Norman
Ingram, Adam


Buckley, George J.
Janner, Greville


Caborn, Richard
John, Brynmor


Callaghan, Jim
Johnston, Sir Russell


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cartwright, John
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Kilfedder, James


Clay, Bob
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clelland, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Knox, David


Cohen, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Leighton, Ron


Corbett, Robin
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Couchman, James
Lewis, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Litherland, Robert


Cox, Tom
Livingstone, Ken


Cran, James
Livsey, Richard


Cryer, Bob
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Cunningham, Dr John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dalyell, Tarn
Loyden, Eddie


Darling, Alistair
McAllion, John


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Doran, Frank
McLeish, Henry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McTaggart, Bob


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McWilliam, John


Dykes, Hugh
Madden, Max


Eadie, Alexander
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eastham, Ken
Maples, John


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Marland, Paul


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Martlew, Eric


Fatchett, Derek
Maxton, John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Meacher, Michael


Fisher, Mark
Meale, Alan


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Forth, Eric
Miscampbell, Norman


Foster, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foulkes, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliott


Fyfe, Maria
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Galbraith, Sam
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gardiner, George
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Neill, Martin


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Gill, Christopher
Patchett, Terry


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pike, Peter L.


Gordon, Mildred
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Prescott, John


Gould, Bryan
Primarolo, Dawn


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Raffan, Keith





Randall, Stuart
Strang, Gavin


Rathbone, Tim
Straw, Jack


Redmond, Martin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Richardson, Jo
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Riddick, Graham
Tredinnick, David


Robinson, Geoffrey
Turner, Dennis


Rogers, Allan
Vaz, Keith


Rooker, Jeff
Viggers, Peter


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wall, Pat


Ruddock, Joan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ryder, Richard
Wareing, Robert N.


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wells, Bowen


Sedgemore, Brian
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wheeler, John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wigley, Dafydd


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Short, Clare
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Wolfson, Mark


Snape, Peter
Wray, Jimmy


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spearing, Nigel



Squire, Robin
Tellers for the Noes:


Steel, Rt Hon David
Ms. Joan Walley and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Steinberg, Gerry



Stott, Roger

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 315.

Division No. 289]
[2.27 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Adley, Robert
Corbett, Robin


Allen, Graham
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Cox, Tom


Ashdown, Paddy
Critchley, Julian


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cryer, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Dr John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Darling, Alistair


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beckett, Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dobson, Frank


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Doran, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Dykes, Hugh


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eadie, Alexander


Blair, Tony
Eastham, Ken


Blunkett, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Boateng, Paul
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bradley, Keith
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Flynn, Paul


Browne, John (Winchester)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Forman, Nigel


Buchan, Norman
Foster, Derek


Buck, Sir Antony
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Galbraith, Sam


Cartwright, John
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
George, Bruce


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clay, Bob
Gill, Christopher


Clelland, David
Glyn, Dr Alan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cohen, Harry
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Colvin, Michael
Gordon, Mildred






Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Needham, Richard


Gould, Bryan
Nellist, Dave


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Neill, Martin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Harman, Ms Harriet
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Haselhurst, Alan
Patchett, Terry


Haynes, Frank
Patnick, Irvine


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pike, Peter L.


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Prescott, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Primarolo, Dawn


Henderson, Doug
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Raffan, Keith


Holland, Stuart
Rathbone, Tim


Hood, Jimmy
Redmond, Martin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Hoyle, Doug
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Riddick, Graham


Illsley, Eric
Robinson, Geoffrey


Ingram, Adam
Rogers, Allan


John, Brynmor
Rooker, Jeff


Johnston, Sir Russell
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rost, Peter


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rowe, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Ruddock, Joan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Ryder, Richard


Knox, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Leadbitter, Ted
Scott, Nicholas


Leighton, Ron
Sedgemore, Brian


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Litherland, Robert
Short, Clare


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livsey, Richard
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Loyden, Eddie
Snape, Peter


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Soley, Clive


McAllion, John
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Ian
Squire, Robin


McCrindle, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Stott, Roger


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Strang, Gavin


McKelvey, William
Straw, Jack


McLeish, Henry
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McTaggart, Bob
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madden, Max
Thurnham, Peter


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Trotter, Neville


Maples, John
Turner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Viggers, Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wall, Pat


Martlew, Eric
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maxton, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Meacher, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Meale, Alan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wheeler, John


Michael, Alun
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Miller, Hal
Wilson, Brian


Miscampbell, Norman
Winnick, David


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morgan, Rhodri
Younger, Rt Hon George


Morley, Elliott



Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mowlam, Marjorie
Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Ms. Joan Walley.


Mullin, Chris





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Arbuthnot, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Allason, Rupert
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Alton. David
Aspinwall, Jack


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Atkins, Robert


Amess, David
Atkinson, David


Amos, Alan
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Anderson, Donald
Baldry, Tony





Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Roger


Battle, John
French, Douglas


Beggs, Roy
Fry, Peter


Beith, A. J.
Galloway, George


Bell, Stuart
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bendall, Vivian
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Benyon, W.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorst, John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Graham, Thomas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Grocott, Bruce


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grylls, Michael


Bowis, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hanley, Jeremy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hannam, John


Brazier, Julian
Hardy, Peter


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Harris, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayes, Jerry


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Buckley, George J.
Hayward, Robert


Budgen, Nicholas
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Burns, Simon
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Burt, Alistair
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butcher, John
Hill, James


Butler, Chris
Hinchliffe, David


Butterfill, John
Hind, Kenneth


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Holt, Richard


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Home Robertson, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howard, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cash, William
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Chapman, Sydney
Howells, Geraint


Chope, Christopher
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Churchill, Mr
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunter, Andrew


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Conway, Derek
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irving, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Janman, Tim


Crowther, Stan
Janner, Greville


Cummings, John
Jessel, Toby


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Curry, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dewar, Donald
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kennedy, Charles


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Douglas, Dick
Kilfedder, James


Dover, Den
King, Roger (B'ham N thfield)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Kirkwood, Archy


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evennett, David
Lambie, David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Lamond, James


Fallon, Michael
Lang, Ian


Favell, Tony
Latham, Michael


Fearn, Ronald
Lawrence, Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)






Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lord, Michael
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Rossi, Sir Hugh


McAvoy, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted


McCrea, Rev William
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McCusker, Harold
Salmond, Alex


Macdonald, Calum A.
Sayeed, Jonathan


McFall, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McGrady, Eddie
Sheerman, Barry


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Maclean, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maclennan, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sims, Roger


McNamara, Kevin
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maginnis, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Major, Rt Hon John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Malins, Humfrey
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mallon, Seamus
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Mans, Keith
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Marland, Paul
Speller, Tony


Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Stevens, Lewis


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sumberg, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


Mellor, David
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thorne, Neil


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thornton, Malcolm


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trippier, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mudd, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Murphy, Paul
Vaz, Keith


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


O'Brien, William
Wallace, James


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard
Ward, John


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Warren, Kenneth


Parry, Robert
Watts, John


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Whitney, Ray


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wilshire, David


Pawsey, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Nicholas


Pendry, Tom
Woodcock, Mike


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Worthington, Tony


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wray, Jimmy


Portillo, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Randall, Stuart



Redwood, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Reid, Dr John
Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. Nicholas Bennett.


Renton, Tim



Robertson, George

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after half-past Two o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered on Friday 13 May.

Mr. Alton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House considered the Bill on Second Reading, when it gave it a majority of 45 on a vote of 296 Members. In Committee, there were 30 hours of debate, 15 Divisions and 27 amendments. Now we have debated the Bill on Report this morning and it has completed its Report stage.
It would bring Parliament into disrepute if we were unable to complete the voting on the Report stage and give the Bill its Third Reading. Millions of people outside the House have followed our discussions this morning and over the months. It is genuinely a matter of great regret that the Bill cannot be completed today——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand how the hon. Gentleman feels, and his regret, but he must address himself to a point of order.

Mr. Alton: Because of these factors, and because there is so much concern that the matter should be resolved, I ask the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make a statement about whether time might be provided at the end of business for the Bill to be further considered.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Proceedings on this Bill have not been concluded today. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who is in charge of the Bill, has named the next private Members' Bill day, Friday 13 May, as the day for further discussion of the Bill so that there may be an opportunity for the House to take its decisions on these matters if that is what it wishes to do.
The Government's position is already clear. It is not our practice to provide extra time for consideration of individual private Members' Bills.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the statement made by the Leader of the House. Would the Leader of the House be prepared to consider, in the light of the proceedings next week and in view of the proscrastination and filibustering of some hon. Members today——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not going to have recriminations of that kind this afternoon. The Leader of the House has heard what has been said.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) claimed that the Report stage of his Bill had been completed. Will you confirm that that is not so—that the Report stage is continuing and has yet to be completed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct.

Mr. Stephen Day: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am in a somewhat unfortunate position, in view of the circumstances, because my private Members' Bill is down to be discussed first next Friday. It is called the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts by Children) Bill——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With respect, we cannot have all that now.

Mr. Day: I want to make it clear to the House that my Bill has received all-party support at every stage. It went through Committee in one morning and was unopposed on Second Reading.
If the Bill of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) comes to the Floor of the House, I hope that the House will allow a decision to be taken on it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are matters for the House to decide next Friday.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) announced that if his Bill did not get through he would enter a monastery, may we assume that the church's loss will be our gain and wish him godspeed?

Private Members' Bills

EMPTY PROPERTY AND COMMUNITY AID BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 July.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I ask hon. Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned to ensure that when the remaining Orders of the Day are called there is quiet in the House so that, in so far as we can, we are able to discover the origin of objections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

INDECENT DISPLAYS (NEWSPAPERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did you receive an objection to the Bill from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: First. I heard an objection, and, secondly, I understand that the Bill has not been printed, so I cannot put it to the House anyway.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 May

SMOKE DETECTORS IN HOUSES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 July.

UNFAIR REPORTING AND RIGHT OF REPLY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 May.

HORSES, PONIES AND DONKEYS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 May.

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (TOBACCO SMOKING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 May.

BLACKLISTS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 May.

SCOTTISH CONSTITUTION (REFERENDUM) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an English Member of the Conservative party to object to the Second Reading of a Bill that has widespread support in Scotland, particularly in the light of yesterday's results——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady need not take her point of order any further. The answer to her question is yes.

Later—

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You did not offer me an opportunity to name a date for the Second Reading of the Scottish Constitution (Referendum) Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I beg the pardon of the hon. Lady and the House for making the same blunder on two occasions. What day?

Mrs. Ewing: Friday 13 May.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 May.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Direct Labour Organisation, Hackney

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: There was a moment this morning when I thought that 550 MPs had turned up to hear my Adjournment debate. However, the Chamber is emptying rapidly and I hope that that is not a reflection on the quality of this very important debate.
The debate arises from a decision taken by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 31 March when he decided to close Hackney's major new-build direct labour organisation. Only two things of worth can be said about that decision. The first is that it was taken as the House was rising for the Easter recess, and was taken then in order to avoid political embarrassment for the Government. As such, the decision can be described as shoddy and irresponsible and, to use a favourite word of the Prime Minister's, gutless.
The second is that the first news of the closure went not to Hackney borough council or to either of the two hon. Members who represent Hackney but to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) in answer to a planted written question, and we must ask the Minister why. I think that the answer is that the Minister is known as a Right-wing political extremist and he needed another Right-wing political extremist to table the question for him. I go to Pembroke regularly, two or three times a year. Farmers there are not very happy with the hon. Member for Pembroke, and neither am I. If he concentrated more on what was going on in that part of the world rather than telling the Preseli district council that it ought not to be getting grants from the Government, he would not get such bad local press.
The background to the debate is that the Minister is known for his fanatical views on privatisation. He is prepared to push privatisation, whatever the consequences and whatever the loss of jobs, the damage to the social fabric, the loss to the public purse or the harm to the integrity of the Department of the Environment and the constitution. The House was shocked to learn that, as a result of his fanatical policies, both personally and in his capacity as Minister at the Department of the Environment, he is under investigation—for misconduct in relation to public funds—by the National Audit Office as a result of a complaint lodged with that office by a member of the Public Accounts Committee.
I have seen the papers, and it is a shocking case. The Minister appears to have put out a private contract to Cluttons for £40.000, when the Property Services Agency in-house could have carried out the contract for £1,300. We are about to witness a major political scandal, just as the closure of the DLO in Hackney is a major political scandal. I would not be surprised if the Prime Minister had to sack the Minister, who is sitting there smiling smugly, before many months are out.
The DLO was closed by a direction of the Secretary of State for the Environment under section 17(4) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. No one who knows the Secretary of State's previous convictions will be surprised to learn that the direction was, and is, unlawful, and will in due course be deemed to be unlawful in the courts unless the Government—I do not believe that even


this Government can do this—can control the judiciary. It is unlawful in a number of respects, and I hope that Mr. Davies, the assistant secretary who signed the direction, is in the Civil Servants' Box. He may have many virtues, but judicial ignorance accompanies them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than most hon. Members that he should not refer to persons beyond the Bar or behind the Chair.

Mr. Sedgemore: I accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I used to work in the precursor of the Department of the Environment and used to sit in that Box advising Ministers. I will leave the Minister to ponder on the sad judicial fate that awaits him.
I ask the House to bear in mind the Secretary of State's sad history in the courts, because that history is about to be repeated. It makes any godfather in the Italian Mafia appear positively respectable. In 1985, the annus mirabilis of this law-breaking Secretary of State, he acted unlawfully, according to the courts, in the Severn bridge toll case, in the GLC lorry ban case and in the London Regional Transport levy case. In the GLC case, the High Court judge described the Secretary of State's actions as
unlawful, irrational and procedurally improper".
In another case, Mr. Justice McNeill, in the High Court, described the Secretary of State's actions as, "unreasonable, irrational, unlawful". That is what we shall find in the case of the closure of Hackney's DLO.
When the Secretary of State was at the Department of Transport, his actions were deemed unlawful in no fewer than seven out of 11 cases for judicial review. In December 1986 the Secretary of State had the temerity to come before the House and introduce amending legislation that involved the unlawful expenditure of billions of pounds in relation to the rate support grant. If ever there has been a Secretary of State who has affronted the constitution and the judicial position, it is the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). He, like the Under-Secretary of State, should lose his job if the Government believe in integrity.
For the moment, it is 600 workers in Hackney who will lose their jobs while the Secretary of State retains his. I understand that 78 per cent. of the 600 are local and that 45 per cent. come from the ethnic minorities. Their jobs will be picked up by privateers, price fixers and jerrybuilders in the private sector. The Minister should explain why he wants to help profiteers, price fixers and jerrybuilders in the private sector as opposed to local people in Hackney.
There are one or two ironies about the Government's decision. First, the direct labour organisation that is to be closed is a profitable enterprise. In the jargon of the Minister, it produces a first-class product. It meets with the wholehearted approval of its customers, who are the tenants who inhabit the 45,000 council properties in Hackney. Even worse from the Minister's point of view is the irony that the movement from losses of £5 million over two years to profit in the succeeding years make it a paradigm for Thatcherism. Why is this paradigm for Thatcherism—a loss-making organisation that has become a profit-making firm—being closed at a time when it is doing everything that the Government want it to do?
The Minister may smile, frown or laugh, and so may the Government Whip, but there has been an admission from councillor Joe Lobenstein—admittedly he is not a very

bright councillor, but he is a fairly amiable person—that the organisation has become profitable. He claims that that is a result of Mrs. Thatcher's policies. Joe Lobenstein is the leader of the Conservative group at Hackney, which is a group of two or three. If the Prime Minister has taken action to make the organisation profitable, or has made the council take that action, why has the Minister chosen this moment to close it?
It is ironic that the Minister is seeking to wreck the best trained work force in the building industry of any company, public or private, in Great Britain. Everyone is astonished at Hackney's training scheme. Everyone, except an ungracious and uncivilised Minister, praises it. No one can believe that it is possible to have a building industry in which 200 trainees are employed and work actively on the production or improvement of homes. These trainees have produced some of the best results that anyone can remember in recent years in local government. I defy the Minister to tell the House that the schemes that I am about to mention, which have been built largely by the 200 trainees, are anything other than excellent and fully approved by the tenants who live in the accommodation.
I refer especially to the building of Powell house in 1983. In 1984 there was the building of the Broadway market. The second phase of the Stonebridge estate was built in 1985. The Lauriston road project was built in 1986. The Stonebridge park scheme in the Lea View estate was given an extraordinary reception the length and breadth of the land. It has received universal acclaim. What will the Minister say about that? Will he chose to close his eyes and adopt some myopic Nelsonian stance? Will he choose to look through the wrong end of the telescope and claim to see nothing? The irony is that the Minister claims that he wants to save money, but the truth is that the ratepayers of Hackney will lose vast quantities of money.
In the past three years the direct labour organisation of the borough has made £500,000 in profit. That is not my main argument in its favour. The cost of closing the direct labour organisation and the extra cost of completing the projects will be something like £8·5 million. The Minister should consider that extremely carefully, because if he does not do so, the High Court of Justice will and he will get his just deserts. The figure of £8·5 million is a conservative estimate of the price of retendering some £23 million of work—which will be outstanding on the date that the Minister has said the direct labour organisation can no longer function—together with the cost of closure.
I first came across the Minister when I was a councillor on the London borough of Wandsworth. I know about his pontifical ignorance and his complete lack of knowledge of what goes on in the building industry. If the Minister seeks to close the direct labour organisation, give it a year to shut up, and leave it with £23 million of work outstanding, does he not understand—he should because I believe that he has connections with the building industry—how the price fixing works when retendering takes place? Does he not understand how a cartel in the building industry operates? Does he not understand how monopolistic profits are squeezed out of organisations such as Hackney borough council and will continue to be squeezed out because of the stupid, silly, awful way in which the Minister and his colleagues have gone about this matter? They have no case. If the Minister does not understand


that fact it will certainly be understood in the High Court because it is not amused by Ministers who are prepared to pour £8·5 million of public money down the drain.
The Department of the Environment asked for a special report from the London borough of Hackney. I shall not comment on it because it is too long and complicated to go through. Since that report was given to the Department in 1986 it has never—to its eternal shame—questioned the borough about the contents of the report. Why? It has ignored the trend from loss to profit. Why? It has ignored the fundamental reorganisation that has taken place—the reorganisation of working practices and managerial structures—the doubling in profitability, and the changes in industrial relations. Why?
When I worked for the precursors of the Ministers for Housing and for Local Government it was axiomatic that Ministers and civil servants tried to help local government. Now it seems to be some type of bloody warfare. The tenants are on the receiving end of absurd diktats from Whitehall. Why did the Department of the Environment and its Ministers not discuss some of the matters with the borough? If they believe that they have powerful, overwhelming arguments in their favour, why did they not bring them to the fore? There could have been some sensible, rational discussion. Why has reason left the Department since the Government took office in 1979?
One of the answers is again provided by Tory Joe of the borough of Hackney. He gives the game away and tells us why the Minister is acting thus. In the Hackney Gazette and North London Advertiserof 15 April 1988 Tory Joe said:
When I was first elected to the Council of the old borough of Stoke Newington in 1962, I argued that building work should be put out to private tender. Now 26 years later, I have achieved my aim.
A 26-year-old vendetta has been waged by a rather ageing, pathetic councillor. That is backed up by another vendetta—the ministerial vendetta. The Minister is as aware as every other Government Minister that the building industry is a major contributor to Conservative party funds. That has, sadly, damaged the integrity of this country's constitution.
Many hon. Members will recall what happened over Cementation and the things that went wrong in very high places. That was a shabby act. The Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister have both acted shabbily as well. I do not mind if the Minister pours £37,000 plus of taxpayers' money down the drain. However, I object to the Minister pouring down the drain £8·5 million of the money belonging to the people living in the poorest borough in the United Kingdom according to the DOE's own indices. It is a public scandal that the Minister is prepared to take and waste their money. Yes, the Prime Minister always says that it is the people's money. Why is the Minister wasting the people's money, our money?
The Minister could not find his way to the London borough of Hackney if he tried. Since there have been ministerial changes in the Department of the Environment the visits have stopped. We used to have some helpful visits from Ministers in the past. However, we get no helpful visits from the Ministers who have taken over.
There appear to be no depths which the Minister will not plumb on the issue of privatisation. There is virtually

no tactic to which he will not aspire, no legal or moral calumny in which he will not engage. Under the Minister, local government has become the pits. There is no longer any financial propriety or any sensible local democracy with local decision taking.
I want to make one final serious point to the Minister. The Minister provided a written reply to the hon. member for Pembroke in which he said:
The borough claimed to have made a surplus on its major new works account in 1985–86 following losses of £3·2 million in 1983–84 and £1·75 million in 1984–85. My right hon. Friend is now satisfied, however, that the claimed surplus is spurious."—[Official Report, 31 March, 1988; Vol. 130, c. 719–720.]
I do not know whether some clever, debating academic from Oxford university has joined the Department of the Environment and thought up using the word "spurious" or whether it was a Minister. However, what does the Minister mean by spurious? I take it to mean false.
I showed the written reply to one or two hon. Members and asked them what they thought the Minister was getting at. I also spoke to some officers of the London borough of Hackney. I was told that they thought that the Minister was claiming that the accounts submitted were dishonest and that the books had been cooked. I am certain that if the Minister has any understanding of the English language he will be aware that many people will have read the reply in that way. I am surprised that answers now appear which seem to suggest that respectable officers with integrity cooked the books or behaved dishonestly.
I do not want to go through the accounts of that period. I am not an accountant, but I am an economist and I understand them pretty well. However, I spoke to the chief executive of the London borough of Hackney and put my points to her. I also spoke to the director of finance and put my points to him. I spoke also to the building manager, Mr. Pat Quinn, about this allegation and to Miss Babcoe the accountant who is now going through the books and revising the profits down, but who still insists that there are profits.
Perhaps the most interesting of those people was Miss Babcoe. She told me that she was going through the books although she had not prepared the original accounts. She said that if she had wanted to cook the books, she could have done a much better job than was alleged to have been done.
There is no question but that Hackney had produced the books as it saw fit and proper with a due regard for the truth of the figures. However, the claim that the figures are spurious shocked me because there is no conceivable way in which the Minister could make that claim as he cannot have seen enough of the books to decide properly. I was further shocked by the fact that the district auditor is looking into the accounts of the period and he must decide in a judicial capacity whether he thinks the figures are spurious. That is a heavy handed way of trying to intimidate the district auditor who is trying to act in a judicial capacity. That is a major scandal which requires answering by the civil servants at the DOE and by the Minister.
The district auditor is a quasi-judicial figure. He is not employed by the Department of the Environment, although the Department may pay his salary. To try to intervene and virtually force the district auditor to declare


figures to be other than they are is only the kind of government that we have come to expect from this Minister.
I do not expect the Minister to stand up and behave in a sensible, proper, responsible fashion, and say that he is prepared to reconsider. I merely warn him that the courts of this country may do what the Executive will not.

Ms. Diane Abbott: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assume that the hon. Lady has the consent of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and the Minister.

Ms. Abbott: On the night of the general election last year, the Prime Minister said:
We must now turn our attention to the inner cities.
She has indeed. She has done so rather in the way that Hitler turned his Luftwaffe on the inner cities. The purpose and content of the attention that she has kindly paid us over the past 12 months has been to devastate our communities, and the announcement of the abolition of our direct labour organisation is part of that pattern.
I want to concentrate on three main points. The first is the effect of the abolition of the DLO on tenants. Unlike the Minister, who has sat and giggled and yawned his way through the entire debate, I have first-hand knowledge of the housing problems of the people of Hackney. My caseload at my weekly surgeries is three quarters composed of housing problems, and I know the misery, grief and rage that are caused by problems with repairs and improvements to estates. There is no doubt that the abolition of the DLO will lead to a sharp decline in the service to tenants.
Some improvement schemes may have to he curtailed, and the quality of work will undoubtedly fall. Such estates as the Lea View estate, an award-winning estate in my constituency, illustrate the kind of work that the Minister wants to bring to an end. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said, the abolition will cost Hackney £.8·5 million—money that could be better spend on building and repairing homes for the thousands in my constituency who experience appalling housing conditions. When the Minister has stopped laughing, he should think on that.
My second point concerns the loss of jobs. I stress that I am talking about an area where the official unemployment rate for adult males is one in four, and it is much higher among young black people and young people generally. It is in the context of that terrible unemployment rate that the Minister proposes to cut 600 jobs at a stroke—jobs that are now done largely by local people, many of them black. Will those people get the jobs from the contractors that he wishes to bring in?
Finally, let me ask the Minister why he is bringing forward the measure. As has been explained, the profitability of the DLO has risen and is rising. It is efficient; it has extremely high standards; it has done award-winning work. It is our contention that the Minister's real reason for attacking our DLO is to help his friends such as McAlpine and Wimpey—major contributors to Tory party funds. If the Government want to help their friends in the building trade, why do they not invest in housing? Why smash up our DLO? 
The announcement is of no help whatever and it will not contribute an iota to the terrible, pressing, tragic housing crisis in Hackney. It is motivated not by the facts, but by mindless political spite. The wrecking nature of the announcement, and the detrimental effect that it will have on employment and housing standards, illustrate the real nature of the Prime Minister's project for the inner cities.
The announcement has no basis in any analysis of the facts. It has everything to do with the most squalid and mean party politics. It will be of no help to my constituents. All that it will do is push the terrible housing and unemployment problems of Hackney into a further downward spiral. I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to reconsider his decision and to withdraw his announcement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I have been left with four minutes in which to reply to the debate, which has been notable for extravagant and abusive language verging on the hysterical. It has included attacks on the integrity not only of myself but of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that inner-city issues will be addressed with rather more seriousness and gravity than has been used by the hon. Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott).
I do not know whether it galls the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch that he was not on Wandsworth council at the same time as I was. Yesterday marked the 10th anniversary of the Conservatives taking control of that council. I remind him that, when the Conservative party took over the council, it took over an inefficient direct labour organisation that has now been reformed. We now have a much more efficient construction service working for the people of Wandsworth. I shall not dwell further on the issues of Wandsworth, but perhaps that is one of the reasons why the hon. Gentleman is so steamed up this afternoon.
The debate has given me the opportunity to explain the background to part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. which confers on the Secretary of State the powers that he has used in this instance. It is not often that the topic is fully discussed and, therefore, it is not often that the House is given a clear picture of the way in which policy has developed and, in particular. of the degree of restraint that has been exercised by the Secretary of State since the Local Government, Planning and Land Act came into force.
Part III of the 1980 Act governs the operation of local authority building and maintenance direct labour organisations. In broad terms, DLOs are required to compete for most of the work that they carry out. They must make a 5 per cent. return on the capital that they employ. When DLOs fail to meet the required rate of return, the legislation empowers my right hon. Friend to ask authorities to provide a special report on the failure. If he is not satisfied that the authority is taking adequate steps to put matters right, my right hon. Friend is empowered to order the closure of the DLO.
In the first six years of operation of the legislation, DLOs recorded over 600 failures to meet the 5 per cent. rate of return. My right hon. Friend and his predecessors are constantly accused of taking every opportunity to


attack direct labour organisations. The facts, however, speak for themselves. During that entire period, only 20 special reports have been requested. In most cases, the Secretary of State concluded that, in the light of the explanations provided, he should allow the DLOs to continue in operation. In one case—that of Newham— he has, in effect, agreed with the authority's own decision that the DLO in question was incapable of operating profitably, and issued a closure notice accordingly.
In only three cases—Haringey, Lambeth and Hackney—has the Secretary of State issued a closure notice in opposition to the views of the authority concerned. In those cases, he did so for good reasons.
The four closure directions were made following losses that totalled over £15 million. They are massive losses by any standard, made possible only by doctrinaire insistence on providing what are quite simply subsidies paid with ratepayers' money. If the government were to provide subsidies on that scale for a few loss-making private

builders, one can only too readily imagine the outbursts of righteous indignation that would be forthcoming from the Opposition.
The only unreasonable thing to do with organisations of that degree of inefficiency is to let them carry on acting as a drain on the public purse. Opposition Members dutifully rehearse the litany of reasons why all is not as it seems, and why, despite the obvious case for closure, even the most appallingly mismanaged DLOs should indeed be let of the hook.
The hon. Gentleman could have referred to the Arden report, which was a voluminous report into inefficiency in Hackney. Before he criticises my right hon. Friend, I remind him that he helped to set it up. Perhaps he should have regard——

The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Three o'clock.